No More Mr Nice Guy

• There used to be a page with Quotes and Stuff here
  
• Here is an opinion piece that gives a good explanation of a problem Wikipedia suffers from as well, and here is a more thorough treatment of the topic by the same author.
• Another hit out of the park by Mr. Schraub [1]
• Some more good stuff from Schraub - [2]

Misleading edit summary

This edit has a misleading edit summary and can be considered vandalism since you removed important information. Please refrain from making such edits otherwise you will get blocked. Thanks Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to a source in the entry, those shirt designs do exist and can be verified by this image gallery [3]-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You still removed information about shirt designs backed up by reliable sources such as the Haaretz. You even removed designs verified by the gallery [4][5] You're close to violating WP:3rr and what is worse you are removing sourced information, so I suggest you stop reverting and start using the talk page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I did say what I had to say to you and I will say it again. You need to stop removing sourced information, go check the sources, not everything has to have picture evidence. That is a child in the crosshair, a design you removed from the article as well. The other is a mosque, note the crescent moon on top. You misconstrue my posts as bullying and threats and that needs to stop. But I apologize for saying that you were close to violating the 3rr, I thought your first edit was a revert. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop removing sourced information. Even if it comes from one source. The information you removed is verifiable and is based a RS. Please stop. Nableezy (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey there. You know, I am still fresh and new here. Simply could not stand the partial perspective and miscoverage the article provides. However, it is a long and hard process. You simply cannot change the world instantly, can you? It is simply impossible to wage war on all the fronts. So, I started with what I see most important. Casualties, disputed figures, psy war. Later, the intlaw issues. I see there is at least one subject we see the same. I kindly ask you, though you do not have to comply, if you see another issue where we have similar opinions, insert a sentence so I would know I am not alone here. Cheers.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF efforts to reduce civilian casualties/Disputed figures subsection

1. Next phase of the 'disputed figures' should be inserting this: 'Mounting evidence indicates that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces served as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing (Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades).' http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?sid=13&pid=104&numResults=2&isSearch=yes&isT8=yes. What do you say?

2. What do you say about the section I started? Man, IDF made some innovations to spare lives, and so far only negative aspects are inserted. What do you think about Kemp? The reason I brought him in was not because X or Y say something pleasant to me ears, but because the man was a high-rank officer, a commander of British forces in N. Ireland and Afghanistan. He is not a politician, he has all the expertise to make military judgement. Am I wrong here?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cremonezi

Hi. Didn't follow all the discussion there, but I wrote there what I think. He is not helpful for casualties section. But evidencies he collected and recorded could be more than helpful elsewhere. For example, the Hamas' intimidation of the population can be easily entered into Hamas' psy-war section I created: 'It was difficult to get these testimonials. In general, fear of Hamas prevails'; 'Those who recount a different version than the story imposed by the “Muhamawa” (the resistance) is automatically an “Amil,” a collaborator and is risking his life...Locals are often threatened by Hamas.'

Hamas using civilian population as human shields: 'they wanted the [Israelis] to shoot at the [the civilians’] houses so they could accuse them of more war crimes. ... Practically all of the tallest buildings in Gaza that were hit by Israeli bombs, like the Dogmoush, Andalous, Jawarah, Siussi, and many others, had rocket launching pads on their roofs, or were observation decks for the Hamas.'

Hamas using medical facilities, hospitals and of course reprisal attacks on Fatah - it should all be spread around the article. http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/28/cremonesi-article-in-english/. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New name

According to the 2008-2009 Israel/Hamas conflict discussion, the name will likely change to "Gaza War." I think "Gaza War political violence" is a much better title than "2009 Hamas political violence." And then we can change the lead to something like "A series of attacks against Fatah...." instead of opening with "Gaza War political violence" because that sounds awkward. I still prefer reprisal attacks though. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User Page

I was a probably a bit too bold, but I wrote something on your userpage so that it doesn't come up as red when you sign your name. I'm sorry if you preferred it to be red. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm afraid I really screwed up. I think even if you blank it now, it will still remain blue. I'll try to contact an admin and see if anything can be done. Maybe you can move your name to "No More Mr. Nice Guy" (with the period after "Mr"). I did not dream that you preferred it remain red. Please forgive me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for forgiving me. And I thought you weren't a nice guy! I'll try to contact admins and see if it can made red again, but the two admins that I had in mind are off-line for the next 5-6 hours. I'll contact them when they get on. Btw, just curious, why do you want a red userpage?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The big nerd that I am, I was unaware of what's cool. A thought just popped into my head: You can color your signature red. Is that an idea? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, knock yourself out at my userpage. I'm happy to see you're cool again. I hope the time spent in blue link land did not totally kill your street cred. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to ask an admin to delete your user page. Such requests are normally honored- see this. You can place a {{db-u1}} template on the page, and it will be taken care of. NoCal100 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry

I'm not in your head, but we may think alike because of similar circumstances. I was also nice once, but now I'm satisfied with just not being an asshole. I hope you haven't become a cynic like me. I hate cynics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas military activity

Hi. I need an honest opinion on the subject. Do you think info I provided is udeful or useless? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. I know we share the same opinion anout the police issue, I am asking you about another isse, section 15. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about Hamas tactics - removing uniform, commandeering ambulances, suicide attacks, putting launching pads on the roofs of the buildings? All of these are hardly mentioned, if at all.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No more mr nice guy!

well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables. Cryptonio (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Equilibristics with the occupation definition

It is interesting to note that Amnesty provides the reader with the definition: 'Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In such situations, the occupying power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” (Hague Regulations, Article 43).' Nevertheless, they are firm in their verdict that Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Funny, isn't it? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD for 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair

Would you be willing to file an AFD? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Okay, I was trying to assume good faith, but now it's quite obvious. You just reverted an edit I made to Moses Montefiore Windmill claiming there was no source for the name Jaffa Gate Mill, even though there was. This being after you showed up to Tawfiq Canaan, Present absentee and List of native plants of Palestine (A-D) (all quite obscure articles), it's clear to me that you are following me. I'm asking you to stop. Right now. If I see you editing directly after me at another page again, I will report you to WP:AE for stalking. K? Tiamut^talk 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to ask you for the record, do you or have you ever had another account at Wikipedia? Tiamut^talk 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have nor did I ever have another account, nor am I stalking you. Feel free to report me for stalking right now. What's the source for "Jaffa Mill Gate"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can back up the accusation, otherwise it would not be made. See User:Tiamut/No More for an outline of how I came to this conclusion. I think it would be best for you to admit that you have been following me around, and commit to not doing it anymore. There is really no other explanation for your edits between July 20 and July 30th. Every single one is one an article that I was either developing heavily previously or had just made an edit to. Its disingenous for you to pretend there is an alternate explanation.

I won't be reporting right now. I've given you what I consider a final warning. Do not follow me anymore. Okay? Tiamut^talk 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that every single one of your edits over the last ten days have been to articles I edited either directly before you did or that I had been working on extensively previously is no coincidence No More Mr Nice Guy. I've given you two warnings now, and if you edit directly after me at an article you have not edited previously again, I will file the report. This is not a threat. It's a fair warning. Take it or leave it. There are thousands of I-P articles, thousands of which I have not touched. I'm sure it will be easy to find some. The ball is in your court. Tiamut^talk 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be bullied into filing a report No More Mr Nice Guy. They are time-consuming and a waste of energy (just like this discussion). I've said what I want to say and you do what you want to do, and we'll see what happens in the future. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More on HRWs criticism

If you are at it, try this article. And don't forget to mention other nice fellows... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

3rr

that is your 3rd revert on Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's my second revert. Your next revert will be your 3rd though.

If you want to discuss the wording, take it to talk. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, your first edit on the page was a revert. nableezy - 15:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my first edit was not a revert.
Also, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you returned the courtesy and did not delete sections I open on your talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was, you removed anothers work, that is a revert. It doesnt matter if you use undo. (and Ill remove what I feel like) nableezy - 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair warning, continue edit warring and AN3 is my next stop. nableezy - 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

and again at 3 reverts on the same page. nableezy - 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

and now 3 reverts on Arab Capital of Culture. nableezy - 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Administrative question

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy! It is certainly not a welcome step, and a deviation from the spirit of a certain "remedy"/ban, but I don't know if it's sanctionable. Depends on the other circumstances. Firstly, you should notify/remind the user putting up the materials on their talk page of the ban/arbitration case before proceeding, as well as the user picking up the materials. If I were the admin making the decision, I'm mostly look on the nature of the materials—those meant exclusively to push a point of view vs. actually informative and valuable materials. However, it's usually not up to a single administartor to decide based on subjective things like that. If you believe that the user(s) in question crossed the line, after sending them both a notice, feel free to open a WP:ANI case and I'll give it my opinion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

on UN partition

we have dangerous history rewriting on the page Partition of Palestine by Nableezy and Harlan. Help out against it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.147.2 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Lebanon War

True, I added 6 paragraphs but all of my information was thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, sourced and even double sourced. They were factually correct. In any event, the reader can refer to the source and make his own assessment as to its veracity and reliability. By reverting the entire edit, The Site Administrator, Fayssalf, substituted the reader's judgment with his own, thus depriving the reader of making his own informed decision. This is an abuse of power and represents censorship in its worst form. As an aside, the sources were from mainstream papers including, Associated Press, Ynet, JPost, Haaretz, Yalibnan, among others. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm new to Wiki and this was my first edit. I am not done with this article. How to you suggest I challange Fayssalf's (site administrator's) reversions? --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

paradise now

what brought you to that article to restore the edit of a banned user? nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

since you have not answered let me give you some things to read. You can start here and while you have the time also take a look at this. Try not to do either of those things in the future. nableezy - 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of something, go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to have chit chat with someone who told me to get lost when I asked for a courtesy. This will be the last time I respond to you here unless there's a specific administrative issue.

Bye bye. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the links would make clear what it is I am accusing you of. Wikihounding and editing on behalf of a banned user. And if you continue with such behavior I will take the issue to arbitration enforcement. Bye. nableezy - 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I categorically deny your accusation. I believe that if you thought you could prove it, you'd have already gone to arbitration enforcement. I shall continue to edit as I see fit. Adios. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deny all you like, but the reason I dont go to AE is that I dont feel one article is big enough an issue to go through the process. Just dont do it anymore. nableezy - 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a case. That's what I thought.

I shall continue to edit as I see fit. Please stop repeatedly threatening me with administrative action you can't follow through with. I'm sure there's some rule against that sort of behavior too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do have a case, and combined with Tiamut's it is pretty strong. If on any future article that you have never edited before you show up right after me I will take that case to AE. That isnt a threat, it isnt a warning, just a fact. Edit as you see fit, but do not go through my contributions to further whatever arguments you think we have. nableezy - 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I encourage both you and Tiamut to take your "case" to the proper venue. But I think we all know you won't because you don't have one.
Thanks for the tip about editing an article you never edited before. Have a look at this and then go read WP:HOUND.
Are we done here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, because there is a pretty big difference. The 4th Geneva Convention article is a major topic that many, many people who edit in the topic are have watchlisted so it would be very difficult for you to say anybody followed you there. But Paradise Now is an article on a movie that people rarely edit. And you also went there to reinstate the edit of a banned user. I have many human rights articles on my watchlist even if I have not edited them. But I highly doubt you had Paradise Now on yours, I doubt you even saw the movie or read a single source about it, I doubt you have even read the article. You went there for the sole purpose of reverting my edit and reinstating the edit of a banned user. There is the difference. And like I said, 1 more time and I will go to the next step in solving the issue. The idea here is to get you to stop such behavior before it becomes necessary for an admin to stop you from continuing with such actions. nableezy - 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're really reaching now. You'd tell AE that you highly doubt I've seen the movie? That's your case?
We're done. Your little threat has been duly noted. Ma salameh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I would tell AE that you edited an article for the first time to reinstate the edit of a banned user immediately after me and did so twice. I would then show them your history of following Tiamut around. But that isnt the point, I am just asking you not to follow me around. Ending up on obscure articles just to revert me give that impression. Please just stop doing so. Aint that complicated. nableezy - 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Either one of you can feel free to tell me to shove off, but how about this: what if, without anyone admitting any wrongdoing, you both agree in principle to avoid, whenever possible, the other? Is that fair/useful? I speak as one who has been often followed... oh, and I have seen Paradise Now, and can't really see the big deal in terms of your disagreement. The whole topic area is fraught enough without obsessing over minutiae, yes? IronDuke 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. The only problem is that Nableezy seems to patrol every single article in the IP space. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may, if he agreed to avoid you on articles he had not yet edited (regardless of watchlist status), would you do the same? IronDuke 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree not to edit an article he has made major edits to. Like I said, he seems to be on almost every article in the IP space, and he's been here for a while. He's probably made at least a single edit to hundreds of articles. I can't agree to exclude articles just because he may have reverted someone there once upon a time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about agreeing not to directly revert him on a new article? Edit away, but try not to undo his edits? IronDuke 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that if he agrees to do the same. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

done. nableezy - 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks to both of you. IronDuke 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: 1 2

The Help Desk is in my watchlist, and I thought I was being helpful. Guess not. nableezy - 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So you admit you made the edit because of the question I asked at the helpdesk, while you didn't actually bother to, oh, I don't know, answer the question I asked at the helpdesk? Very helpful indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the citation, what else was there to answer? Whether or not it was good enough to begin with? But yes, I fixed the cite because you asked a question at the help desk. Normally people say thank you when that happens. nableezy - 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to learn a bit about what is considered an acceptable citation, and how this place works in general. But never mind, I learn much more about how things work around here, not to mention many little tricks, by watching you than you'd ever tell me on the helpdesk page, so it's all good. Bye now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hello again

Hi again! Do I agree with you? Yes! Do I want to start the ball rolling? No! ;) we've had small discussions on this before, but while there are still so many trolls in the I–P area, I doubt there is any interest for serious editors to start a debate about this. There are many other smaller important things to take care of for now (IMO). Maybe someday... although if you start this thing, I'll be sure to join any such discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anyone in mind who'd be willing to do this. Again, this is just too big, and most of the regular editors are busy with the smaller stuff. If you feel extremely strongly about it, I suggest going about this on a case by case basis. There are some articles with similar names that don't need to merged at all, some which could be debated, and some which must be merged. Therefore, try to find the latter, and act upon it slowly, article by article, discussing it with the primary editors of both articles. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be counter-productive though. If you believe that after the "big fight" things will settle, you are incorrect. There was recently an ArbCom case about the question of Judea and Samaria vs. West Bank, and there are still quite a few revert wars about it, and no wide community agreement. The guideline was drafted, but it still leaves a lot of space for edit-warring. Moreover, none of the editors who edit-war on this stuff actually contribute to these articles, so I am of the opinion that we'd be much better off without their "contributions" and instead had more editors who wrote content on these subject. And when you write content, it takes quite a while to write each article (properly), and also gives you a better case for merger if you actually work on the article.

Moreover, as I said, many cases are not clear-cut, so there shouldn't even be a blanket guideline. Firstly, find those articles that need to be merged, and tackle them before moving on to more controversial cases. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hartuv

When you start nice articles like this, you should nominate them for DKY.Historicist (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your helpful advice. I do appreciate it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for ur advice and helpful comments. As u can see, I was blocked for violating 3R but I was offline for a few days and didn't immediately realize the block. It was actually a pretty good thing because as u know, this wiki thing sucks u in and consumes large amounts of time. So the break was nice. Be well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

UN Resolution 242

WP:BRD explains that BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. As a result of your talk page criticisms, I made substantial revisions to the section on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war regarding the rules of non-recognition that were adopted by the UN as a result of the various territorial situations created by Israel. Nonetheless, you have deleted that information entirely citing WP:UNDUE. That page says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", and "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

The information you deleted represents both the published majority viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the majority of UN member states regarding: (1) the rules established by resolution 242 and Article 2 of the UN Charter (an international convention); (2) international custom regarding non-recognition as evidence of a general practice they have accepted as law (Stimson Doctrine, Council of the League of Nations resolutions on Manchukuo, and etc.); and (3) the judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations.

WP:VALID says that the Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. Nothing in WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BRD policy supports the wholesale deletion of well sourced neutral narratives regarding the majority viewpoint. harlan (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3rd hello

I don't think the title is what matters most, instead the article should be fixed. As you said yourself, a "place name" in Tel Aviv? I would like to see anyone who doesn't already know what Abu Kabir is understand what's written there. As for the title, it doesn't really matter as many neighborhoods and even some villages in Israel are commonly known by the previous names, famously Katamon, from which you can take an example in fixing this article. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

You've already been asked to stop deleting well sourced material that represents the published majority viewpoint of the UN member states. harlan (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not even close to what I did. You've already been asked not to misrepresent what people say when they disagree with your edits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did. The intro to the quoted section of the resolution said that the General Assembly had made a declaration, not me. Your edit summary attributed the declaration to me and you deleted both of the statements made by the General Assembly in the text of the cited Resolution. harlan (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted your misrepresentation of what the resolution said, and the quote since it was no longer relevant. I'm going to do it again, by the way, since you're once again misrepresenting what the resolution says. For some reason you took it upon yourself to change where the resolution says "aggression" to "occupation". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. On is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're approaching me with this. Putting aside the way you and your gang jumped Sandstein with an aggressive campaign of insults and various personal attacks, you and Nableezy have been nothing but unpleasant towards me during the whole time I've been editing here. I understand you want your appeal to seem it has bipartisan support, but you should try people Nableezy hasn't been a complete shit to. There might be one or two. Maybe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not understand that in order to avoid being accused of canvassing, it is my responsibility to inform to all interested parties (all those who commented at Sandstein's page and Nableezy's of any intended initiative. I did not think you would support such an initiative, but you have the right to know about it, so that you can oppose, if that is what you wish to do. So thank you for your obscene commentary. And FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not post anything about Nableezy's ban, not on AE nor on Sandstein's page. You are indeed canvassing, but I commend you on your effort to make it seem like you're not.

As for the commentary - you're welcome. You both earned it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You responded to another editor's comments regarding Nableezy's ban on that page. If I misunderstood, and you do not want to be informed/involved in the discussions to follow, then you can simply disregard this message. Again, thank you for your commentary and have a nice day. Tiamut^talk 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you've received other reminders below already, but now that I see you've edited yesterday (or today, depending on time zone), I'd like to remind you once again that you're the last person we're waiting for on the mediation. Technically, the seven-day period expired Sunday, but it would obviously be much better for everyone if you explicitly stated your agreement or disagreement to the request. We don't want to keep waiting around guessing and, further, it would be a shame if the mediation were rejected because of your apparent disinterest when you really were interested in going forward with it (and it just slipped your mind, or you were busy, etc.). -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. Next time the issue comes up I won't participate on the talk page and then you guys can go to mediation. Then I'll join in the time after that since it's pretty obvious some people won't let it rest until they get want they want, which mediation is unlikely to give them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to make that decision if you want, NMMNG, but you seem to be effetively saying: "launch a new request for mediation without inviting me, then you'll get an agreement to mediate". Why not cut out the middleman and consent now on the understanding that you may not participate? --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. Launch a new request for mediation without inviting me, then you'll get an agreement to mediate. Well, at least if the same coercion tactics are used against some editors I guess.

Not sure I'm following you on the "middleman" thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you are willing to allow mediation to happen, it's just that you don't want to be involved. And yet you could make that happen immediately. Re-filing seems unecessary and I can't see how it is of any benefit to anyone - ie it's just a barrier that could easily be cut out. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So I'm the middleman? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess whoever were to do the re-filing would be the middleman. Unless they're a woman. --FormerIP (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we both meant middleperson. There is no gender bias on my talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should change your username then! (Only kidding). Anyway, my point is that we can do without any middle-people. It looks like the situation will end up the same in either case. Either you consent to mediation now, in which case it goes ahead, or you consent to a new request which doesn't involve you, in which case it goes ahead but there's a bit of additional hassle first. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A new request that does not involve me does not require my consent.

Also, I want to see if whoever it was that sent anonymous threatening emails to nsaum will be dragging me to arbcom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It sort of would reuqire your consent, because you would have to not insist on being listed as a party.

I don't think you can realistically expect the sender of anonymous emails to idenfity themselves. If you don't consent to mediation, then someone may decide to nominate the case, but I think that has always been on the cards.

Am I to take it that I am wasting my time here? --FormerIP (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that I'd insist on being listed in future mediation on this topic then it's me who's been wasting his time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I see you've named me as an involved party in the mediation regarding the Israel article. I haven't been involved in mediation before, so I have a few questions. If you don't think you're the right person to ask, please point me at someone who you think is.

• What happens if I decide I don't want to participate in mediation?
• If I do participate and the mediation fails, what happens then?
• If I do participate and the mediation goes well, can other editors bring up the issue again at a later date and try to "improve" on the compromise reached at mediation?

Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering I'm a member of the Mediation Committee, I should be able to answer your questions:

• If you don't want to participate, the case will be rejected. All relevant parties must agree to mediation, and while complex, lengthy cases like this one often require very minor parties to be weeded out, I don't think you can be considered a minor party. If you disagree with the mediation, it will not go further. Someone may decide, if they like, to address the matter through other channels of dispute resolution. But RfM is generally considered the court of last resort for content disputes. ArbCom is only relevant if a user conduct issue could be formulated (e.g. some editor or group of editors is being disruptive to prevent a resolution).
• If the mediation fails, it's chalked up to yet another form of dispute resolution that was tried but failed. Once again, someone could try to go through another form of dispute resolution. Even though MedCom is the court of last resort (which is not to say mediation results are binding), people will generally go back to RfCs, endless discussions... you know... what we have now.
• Yes, they can. Mediation results are not binding, so anyone can "improve on the compromise" as you say, or bring it back closer toward the pre-mediation formulation. But the idea is that an agreement from a mediation request holds a lot of weight, and the likelihood of there being consensus to put in place anything other than the agreement should be very low. If others who followed the case, especially those who participated in it, start to ask for more than what they already agreed to with no change in situation or addition of new information and positions, there's obviously grounds for considering them disruptive. ArbCom would be a natural next step, if ignoring them is not sufficient.

I should add as a final point that the proceedings of a request for mediation cannot be used against you in an ArbCom case or pretty much anywhere else. If necessary, the proceedings may be held off Wikipedia on a more private site. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that you can withdraw consent to mediation at any time. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that even if mediation is successful (which I think is pretty unlikely considering some people present their position as "non-negotiable") it would probably take quite a bit of time and effort to achieve. If then anyone can restart the discussion on the talk page, the whole thing seems pointless to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've told you all I needed to tell you. If you want to disagree with the mediation, you are well within your right to do so. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what I want to do. Should I ask someone who's not involved? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh..... do what you want. This isn't a life-or-death decision. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for horning in, but I urge you to participate in the mediation. I am not a party to the mediation, but I would like to see it go forward. While the outcome of the mediation is not binding, particularly on those who are not parties, nonetheless, if the mediator succeeds in reaching an agreement, that agreement will have a lot of weight, and, I believe, will certainly be a potent argument for squelching any future bickering that comes up on the talk page.

At the present, you are the only party to the mediation who has not yet agreed to participate. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. There are two people who have not yet agreed to the mediation, and I think both of us share the same concerns.

Several editors have said their position is "non-negotiable". At least one editor has pretty much said they will continue discussing the issue until they get the result they want. In this kind of atmosphere I'm really not sure I want to waste my time on a mediation process which might not even yield results, but even if it does will just postpone the inevitable return of the issue for a couple of months. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments may be less welcome but I feel compelled to say this. If the mediation concludes, regardless of the conclusion, I will not mention the issue again. It is at least worth a try to get a discussion about this issue moderated by a disinterested party. Even if nothing is accomplished in terms of an agreement what have you lost? nableezy - 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with this completely. You cannot possibly lose by agreeing to mediation. Parties have to agree at the end of the process - if there is still no common ground, there is just no agreement, which would be a shame but not a tragedy for anyone. You can withdraw later if you don't like it, and you can also sign up but choose not to participate or to participate little if that's what you prefer. I do think there is a decent possibility that the matter may end up with ArbCom if mediation does not happen, which would not be a good thing and ought not to be necessary. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At least arbcom can make binding decisions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you actually actively want to go to ArbCom, then please give mediation a chance first, and in the event that agreement is genuinely not possible, I would also support this. As has been said, you can't lose anything by taking that path. I think a mediation discussion is likely to take a different character from the RfC (hoepfully, more focused), and it is worth seeing if that brings any movement or new ideas. Also, whilst mediation is not technically binding, I think the effect would be similar, since the users who care most about the issue will all have reached an agreement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to go to arbcom. You were the one who brought it up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understood, I obviously misinterpreted your comment. That being the case, I think it makes sense to give mediation a try for all the above reasons. --FormerIP (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I received an anonymous email, outside of the wiki-email function, stating that you (NMMNG) and I would be taken to arbcom for disruptive editing if we did not agree to join the mediation. My email address has not been on my user page for quite some time, perhaps its time I have an admin go through and delete the revisions that contained it. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a threat too. Oh well. I did get some implied threats, so I guess I'll make do with those.

It is my understanding that mediation is a voluntary process. Guess I'm going to find out if that's right from arbcom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely one of the reasons why I felt nothing good would come from a mediation. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a tinderbox. There are many good editors on both sides, unfortunately each side also has a few "bad apples" who will stop at nothing to reach their preconceived outcome. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

Well whoever emailed me has apparently read this discussion thread because they referenced it in their latest message. Coercion sucks. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing can be done to you for refusing mediation, you both can do what you want. Though I hope you would at least be willing to allow it to go through, even if you feel you want to withdraw at a later date. nableezy - 07:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you email me the threatening emails you got? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, if it were me I would refuse just on the basis of receiving those email threats. I'm not one to submit to blackmail. Plus I would love to see who fills out the disruptive editing arbcom. But I guess I'm just a bad apple. Breein1007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That certainly influenced my decision, although I don't fault nsaum for ignoring it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that you're the final vote. If you decide to decline, MedCom cannot pick up this case. If you agree, we'll get a mediator as soon as possible. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State of Palestine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NJA (t/c) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yad Mordechai

You've done a fine job on Yad Mordechai. Nice additions. Good content. Just thought you should know.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's some more I'll add when I have some more free time. I have Morris' 2008 book. Very interesting stuff.

My additions could use some formatting though, it looks like a huge block of text now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reading Morris. Good read but a bit revisionist. Do you have an interest in other Mid-East battles aside from Yad Mordechai? I've done some editing on the Second Lebanon War (as you may recall, I was baptized under fire with that one), Gaza War, Yom Kippur War and Six Day War--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really a military buff, but I do like history. Gaza War and Second Lebanon war are not exactly my cup of tea. The anti-Israel contingent are really drawn to those and I don't enjoy these stupid little passive aggressive exchanges with them.

I think when I'm done with Yad Mordechai, I might start an article for the battle of Ramat Yohanan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The result section should reflect the most significant military outcome of the event. The delaying action impeded the Egyptian northward drive and bought the IDF precious time to organize a defense. Ultimately, this battle represented a turning point on the southern front. The Egyptian takeover of the settlement lasted barely 5 months. The temporary nature of the occupation was inconsequential in relation to the significance of the delaying action. Therefore, the delaying action should be the only component featured in the result section. Your thoughts--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know what is usually done in such cases. I seriously doubt the article will end up without showing both POVs, so fighting it seems like a waste of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL

I'm cracking up...... Breein1007 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eden Natan-Zada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion _(talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You violated 3RR, making four reverts in less than four hours. I've explained why my changes are necessary on the talk page. Please respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines (per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:3RR) and refrain from reverting again. Tiamut^talk 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You violated BRD. You explained why your changes are necessary only after I threatened to report you and your tag team buddy. Please respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines (per WP:BRD and WP:3RR) and refrain from reverting again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD does not trump 3RR. You are equally obligated to initiate a discussion, and you are in no way exempt from 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But sometimes when you have two users tag teaming to insert a version they like after a specific BRD request, you can get carried away.

Out of curiosity, how did you happen to get involved here, Acroterion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One person's "tag-teaming" can be another person's consensus; it's easy to lose perspective. I've seen too many people who should know better find themselves on the wrong side of 3RR this way. I don't recall how I came across this, probably via noticing an edit summary in the recent edits page, which made me take a closer look. You'd be surprised at what comes up that way. Acroterion _(talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopening ANI thread

Hi. What are you trying to achieve by reopening the ANI thread? The consensus was for an interaction ban, and Sandstein went ahead and implemented it. I know you and your mates want me to be topic banned but unfortunately there just isn't the will for it amongst the general Wikipedia community at the moment. Keeping the thread open for longer and longer won't change that, so please just reclose it and let it go, okay? Factsontheground (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think someone who's not an admin should close it. That's all. As you may have noticed, I didn't participate in the thread although I am aware of quite a few things you've done and said that are against policy. Accusing me (and "my mates"?) of wanting you banned is just more of the BATTLE mentality you keep displaying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maimonides Synagogue

Hi, No More Mr Nice Guy, I believe we have to shorten a bit the section describing recent events. Otherwise DYK nomination will be killed as it was with Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) here. They will stop at nothing. So maybe you could help me to shorten the section in question in order for DYK to pass.Of course then they might come up with something else. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to expand the other sections. A little something about the Rambam, and some more information on the synagogue. Maybe a few pictures. I don't think shortening the controversy section is a good idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I put in everything I was able to find about the synagogue itself. Besides even if we are to add a new section or two, the claim of recentenism will still stay, would it not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the article is proportioned correctly as per the available sources. I don't think the fact some people don't like the political implications of recent events is a good enough reason to hide them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Christian Europe learned a lot from Moses Maimonides. It was his Code from what the medial church learned about medieval synagogue" is from the source Encyclopedia Britannica. Please take a look. I believe it should be in.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what that sentence means. Are you sure you copied it correctly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check the sourcepage 431. BTW could you please take a look pages 149-150. I am not sure they are talking about the same synagogue, but even if they are not, maybe we could use that source? --Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the preview. Can you? I hope there isn't some conspiracy involving google to deny me book previews.

The other synagogue might be Ben Ezra. That's the more famous synagogue in Cairo. Where they found the Cairo Genizah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do see preview just fine. Interesting. Let please do it that way: here's the search : [6] please hit the first link and go to page 431. I hope this will do it for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, were you able to read the source? --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this source pages 220 and 221? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I put up a thread at the ANI board concerning what I perceive as disruptive editing on the part of User:Vexorg. Since I mentioned one or more of his diffs directed to you on the talk page, I thought it appropriate to notify you as well. It can be found here. [7] Best, Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look, but I prefer not to get involved in the administrative boards circus unless I am personally brought up there or somehow directly involved. I agree Vexorg's behavior should (and probably will) get him blocked soon, FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, I certainly understand that perspective. ;) I was not looking for input, just letting you know. Best, Stellarkid (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rothschild_family

Hey dude. This discussion seems to be between you and me, so I thought it might be appropriate to post to user talk. I'm a little confused and would like clarification for your "Coatrack" characterization. My understanding of a "Coatrack" is that it's a subject that isn't notable, but exists solely to introduce bias into an article. Is this your understanding? I think we agree that saying "Some Rothchilds were Zionists, some weren't" is notable and NPOV. So I'm having difficulty understanding where you think the bias is coming from, and whom it's against. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further - Re "You have my opinion on the matter" & " make sure you have consensus" - But I'd like to understand your opinion better, and would like you to be part of the consensus. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This really belongs on the article talk page. There are at least 5 other people involved in the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... You won't humor me? Oh well. I tried. NickCT (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for dropping a line. I've been very busy with work lately and haven't had the time to engage in any productive editing but I'll be back soon. Incidentally, I was recently at Yad Mordechai and the set-up there is pretty cool. They've got the original tanks, artillery and troop carriers (Bren Gun Carriers) used by the Egyptians and the Israeli pill boxes and trenches. It's set up quite nicely and gives the visitor a real feel of the firepower the Israelis were up against. There's also a museum nearby detailing the weapons and tactics. It was really nice.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you take any pictures? Could be useful for the article. Glad to see you're back, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I took a few. I wasn't thinking of Wiki when I took them but it's a good suggestion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a side point about Yad Mordechai. When I was there, I saw the remnants of a WWII German armored vehicle equipped wth a 20mm cannon. It was captured by the British from the Germans and given to the Egyptians for use against the Israelis. The Israelis captured it from the Egyptians and it was pressed into Israeli service for use against the Arabs. What goes around, comes around. :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

WP:TEDIOUS Edits at British Mandate of Palestine

There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. You have repeatedly removed well sourced material from the British Mandate of Palestine article [8] and [9]

According to Wikipedia:ARBPIA, editors do not have the right to engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism of other editors across different forums. If you have genuine controversy, you are expected to avail yourself of the dispute resolution mechanism, or drop the matter. Wikipedia's communal approaches require editors to apply the principles contained in neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability in their editing. If you wish to include an opposing viewpoint in this article regarding the statehood of the Palestine mandate, you have to cite reliable published sources, not your own personal opinion. harlan (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are strong words from someone who's currently edit warring with 3 other editors on that article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you self-revert to restore the material you deleted and supply reliable sources for any opposing viewpoints. harlan (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop with the OR. When someone says "X was treated as a state for the purpose of Y" that doesn't mean "X is a state". On the contrary, it strongly suggests X is not a state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been quoting and citing third-party verifiable analysis contained in the US State Department Digest of International Law. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles [10] and Articles 46, 47, and 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne [11] do not say a "state for the purposes of". The Permanent Court of International Justice and the LoN Arbital Court didn't use that language either. Neither did Whiteman, Gil-Har, or Mark Tessler. You might want to make a good faith effort to actually read the citations that accompanied the material that you deleted. The LoN Arbital Court final decision is quoted in the League of Nations mandate article. harlan (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What you did with the treaties of Lausanne an Versailles is a combination of SYNTH and OR. Neither of them speak of the British Mandate in Palestine. Neither of them say Palestine or Transjordan are states.

Anyway, the place for discussion of this content dispute is on the talk page of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whiteman discusses the treaties and how they pertain to the legal status of Palestine and Transjordan. This isn't a content dispute, you are violating the Wikipedia:ARBPIA sanctions by refusing to provide a verifiable source to support your edits and by making disruptive deletions of pertinent sourced content. Per WP:ASF: There is no dispute that the Treaty of Lausanne is the applicable international law, the PCIJ said so, and Whiteman noted that fact. There is no dispute that the Arbital Court's decision was final under the terms of Article 47 of the Treaty and that it held that Palestine and Transjordan were states. That is all cited and quoted from a reliable secondary source - Whiteman's Digest of International Law. Here is another quote from Whiteman :"The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne (28 LNTS 11) provided for the application of principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. Thus, Norman Bentwich, in commenting on the case of Heirs of the Prince Mohamed Selim v. The Government of Palestine (reported in [1935-1937] Ann. Dig. 123 (No. 39)), states: ". . . The Article [60] of the Treaty [of Lausanne] transferred to the Government of Palestine only those properties which were passed from the Civil List to the Ottoman State by the Irades. But there was nothing in the discussions on the Treaty of Lausanne which could upset the natural interpretation of the words of the Article, that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the allied successor states." -- Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) 650, Questia, Web, 22 Apr. 2010.

Article 60 of the Treaty does not say "a state for the purposes of". This has gotten silly. harlan (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to read that. Take it to the article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took this discussion to the article talk page. I pointed out that the final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors, like yourself, to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. The article cites a number of journals and legal digests regarding the boundaries of the states that were established in the British Mandate and the international and national courts which ruled that Palestine was a State.

I said that editors who claim that Palestine was not a state are welcome to add opposing views from reliable published sources and asked that they please stop deleting well sourced material representing the court decisions, so that Wikipedia can provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. You did not take part in the discussion, but continued to make reverts with unsourced controversial assertions: rv. for the nth time - "a court ruled that X is a state for the purpose of Y" != "X is a state".) harlan (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My points were raised by others on the talk page. You are obviously misusing your sources. You are also edit warring. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit

Please take a look at this edit, what is your position about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365274898&oldid=365274595 Marokwitz (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that picture demonstrates that the activists acted violently and thus will not be allowed in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas & Turkish "humanitarians"

Helen Thomas says the Jews "should go back to Poland" & Turkish "humanitarians" say the Jews "should go back to Aushwitz." Can you feel the love?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Jon Stewart who said that Helen Thomas is old enough to remember why the Jews left Poland and Germany. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this editorial. I'll throw in this quote as a little present to the people who will shortly be reading this since they love to hound me so religiously.
"The Arab desire to kick the Jews the hell out of Palestine did not begin in 1967, and not in 1948. It began the moment the initial groups of Jews arrived and started to make the land flower and produce crops. The Hebron Massacre of 1929, where marauding Arabs killed nearly 70 Jews and wounded countless others, took place long before a single house was built over the Green Line." Breein1007 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Helen Thomas alive during the times of King David, King Solomon, the Maccabees, John Hyrcanus, Alexander Yanai the Great Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt? Perhaps she just failed to recall that Jews had been living in Israel thousands of years before the word "Palestinian" even came into existence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think any article where indigenous-ness or someone claiming Jews should leave "Palestine" is brought up it should be linked to denying genocides carried out against the pre-Zionist indigenous Jewish population of Israel/"Palestine" such as the Safed Plunder, no? DionysosElysees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Notification of 1RR

Please have a read and make yourself familiar with Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, editors of the Gaza flotilla raid are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. It appears you have made more than one revert today. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks. Mo ainm~Talk 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How does it "appear" I made more than one revert in 24 hours when I made a single edit out of the past 500 edits to the article? That's 4 days worth of edits, if you're not familiar with the use of the article history function.

I notice you gave me this frivolous warning while ignoring other users who made more than one revert in a single hour. Perhaps you're the one who should make himself familiar with the discretionary sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake no need to get your knickers in a twist, you weren't the intended recipient, but at least you are aware of the sanctions now and you wont revert another editor a minute after they make a good faith edit. Mo ainm~Talk 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Considering you didn't give the warning to anyone else after you were made aware of your "mistake", I have to wonder who the intended recipient was or if indeed there was one.
• I did not revert another editor after one minute, I reverted an edit that was made 24 minutes earlier.
• I doubt removing multiple photos that support the Israeli position could be considered "good faith edits".
• I was aware of the sanctions before you made your frivolous warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you made more than 1 revert in 24 hours: [12], [13]. Please note that many users, including myself, were recently blocked for 24 hours for violating the WP:1RR restriction on the article. The admins are taking it very seriously. --386-DX (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza_flotilla_raid#Journalists.27_accounts

Hi. Do you have any source to confirm this image is from a journalist?--Brendumb (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is for accounts of journalists who were witnesses to the event. Is there a source which shows this image was taken by a journalist who witnessed the event?--Brendumb (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not following you. Someone took the picture and it was published in a Turkish newspaper. That's journalism. Do you have an issue with the validity of the photo or are you just looking for a reason to remove it (as opposed to, say, move it to another section if you think it wasn't taken by a "journalist" but by a "passenger")?

And there is absolutely no source to confirm that it was taken by a journalist witnessing the event. It would be best if we were to get a source confirming who took the photo, and I hope you don't want to mislead anyone about the source of the photo either.--Brendumb (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The source of the photo is a Turkish newspaper, as is clearly stated in the caption. I doubt the technical issue of whether the person who took it is an accredited journalist is really important, but I recall reading that he was. Even if he wasn't, that's no reason to completely remove the photo from the article. You removed several photos, all of which support the claims of a certain side. That's a violation of WP:NPOV. In an article under discretionary sanctions, this sort of behavior could get you blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could stop questioning my motives and simply reply to content related matters. The section the image is in is for journalists who witnessed the event. Is there any source to confirm the image was from a journalist who witnessed the event?--Brendumb (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm questioning your actions, not your motives. I think we're done here. Lets take it to the article talk page. Please note that if you continue to remove only photos that support one side's claims, I will report you and you're very likely to get blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion on talk now. I would appreciate it if we could just discuss the article and the photo, which I haven't been able to confirm came from a journalist witnessing the event.--Brendumb (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the source of the photos which you were able to provide, I believe it is debatable whether they are from a completely neutral journalist who witnessed the event. I think it might be better to move the image to the casualties section where we will not be passing judgment about the source. I hope you could respond to this proposal, or make others, on talk.--Brendumb (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

I've collapsed your comment about an individual editor. I got the impression from your posts to my talk page that you did not have the time to address complaints like this? If you do, in fact, have the time, please do so with the editor concerned, or at WP:DR, instead of leaving vague, unsubstantiated complaints on the article's talk page.

Cheers, TFOWR 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had the time and/or inclination, I would address it. But since I don't, I was asking for someone else to. It is a valid complaint, you must admit. Someone noted the picture was re-inserted against consensus, and I identified who did it.

By the way, did you notice the accent Brendumb developed over the past few days? I'm starting to get the feeling I know who's sock this is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI report notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62

If you have an issue with Physchim62 raise it with them on their talk page. If that isn't successful pursue dispute resolution. I'd recommend WP:WQA, but I'd assumed your complaint was over civility; if it's not then WP:AE may be a better option.

You're more than capable of doing all this without me holding your hand: I've told you all this before (I suspect when I hit "Save page" I'll see it a few threads up). I have to say I'm getting just a wee but suspicious of your motivations at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid with regard to Physchim62.

Cheers, TFOWR 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. I've been nothing but polite and civil, keeping my personal opinions to myself, using the talk page and basically doing what every good wikipedian is supposed to, while this guy has been nothing but abusive and you suspect my motivations?

I don't need you to hold my hand. I need you to be an admin. You're the only admin who regularly visits that page. If you don't want to enforce anything, at the bare minimum you should point out to people they should be civil.

Of course I'll take it to WP:AE over WP:WQA. The sanctions are there for a reason and I really shouldn't be expected to take this kind of crap. 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You've repeatedly raised the subject of one editor on an article's talk page. I've suggested several times that the appropriate, the courteous, route to take would be to raise it with them, on their talk page, or take it to WP:DR. You've chosen to ignore that advice.

I am involved with the article. I was involved with the article before I became an admin. I have no intention — indeed, I've stated this on the talk page — of suddenly "being an admin" at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. It would be hugely inappropriate.

You do not need my permission — or, indeed, any one's opinion — to take a matter to WP:DR. You know that, you've known that for some time, so I remain surprised that you feel the need to constantly raise this editor's conduct on the article talk page. It's time for you to take it to WP:DR or move on.

TFOWR 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly been abusive, used the talk page as a forum and posted his personal opinion using pretty strong language, all of which clearly go against WP:TALK. So I pointed it out on the talk page. Somehow you think that is worse than the actual TALK violations.

I don't think it would be "hugely inappropriate" for you to have a word with him, considering you seem to know where his talk page is, and you were able to find your way here when you had something to say to me. Maybe I'm just naive.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the courteous way to deal with someone who's being abusive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't intend to put words in my mouth, but I have no problem having a discrete word with anyone. Indeed, as I'm sure you're aware, I have already raised issues with this particular and several other editors. My concern here is that you have repeatedly ignored advice to take it to WP:DR - for example, here: I would still encourage you to raise concerns - general concerns at the article's talk page, concerns about editors either with them (or me, if you'd like a second opinion first). There's always WP:DR and WP:ANI, too, particularly where you feel sanctions may have been broken. You've been told how to deal with whatever problem it is you have with this editor, but "I'm not going to waste my time on the admin boards". If you have the time to moan on the article's talk page you have the time to do something about your complaints. WP:DR or WP:TEA. TFOWR 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Often a few words on the talk page are enough to make an editor realize he's crossing the line, particularly when accompanied by a small nudge in the right direction from someone they respect. WP:WQA or WP:ANI tend to turn into huge discussions, taking orders of magnitude more time and yielding random results. When there's a pattern of disruptive editing as is emerging here, the benefit-cost ratio becomes more appealing, particularly since WP:AE takes a pretty dim view towards this sort of disruption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I already do most of what you suggested there (although I currently have a candidate for my first ever AE filing). I doubt you'll be able to get the guys who like to play on the admin boards to adhere to it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Your comment here responding to an ANI notification User:386-DX made came very close to violating our policy against making personal attacks. It was certainly not helpful or constructive.

We do not as a project expect everyone to always get along, nor that everyone will treat each other with kid gloves. But we do ask that you generally follow our civil and collegial editing policy and not make personal attacks. When people are rude it degrades the quality of conversation among all parties participating, making it harder to have constructive discussions and find consensus.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as a personal attack. I see it as an excellent observation and a fact that should not be lost on the admin who evaluates the merits of a baseless AE. An AE whose sole design and purpose is not to advance the quality of Wikipedia but rather, to muzzle and silence opposing views.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between calmly pointing out that 386-DX was making a lot of ANI reports about that article recently, and using sarcasm and borderline insults to do so.

There was no call for the abusiveness aspect of that comment. The underlying observation can be (and generally was) reasonable, but presenting it in that manner was the problem. I'm not saying the observation was wrong. I'm saying, don't attack people in making such observations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I take responsibility for being a little sarcastic, but I honestly don't see what could be construed as "borderline insults" in what I said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

By WP standards, it is extraordinarily mild. There is a lot of lower hanging fruit to harvest, if enforcing civility is the aim. IronDuke 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the users in question are in a sense lost cases already - they're committed to an ideology of rude and will push that until they cross lines and are blocked. Not worth leaving first level friendly warnings for them, they will take it as encouragement.

Everyone we can remind that it's a bad thing overall, who listens and is convinced not to go down that path, is a win for the project.

It wasn't worth making a huge deal out of, but it was worth talking about a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful for me if someone told me what the "borderline insults" are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by this. George, I agree with much of what you said, but not only does NMMNG's post not come to violating NPA, it doesn't really come close to violating CIV. Put another way, I could show you posts from sitting arbitrators (to say nothing of admins) that are much worse. I think you've made a good faith misinterpretation here. IronDuke 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: AE

These comments are certainly relevant to the case, but not necessarily to arbitration enforcement, as the edits were made before the ARBPIA warning and therefore, while inappropriate and appalling, aren't actionable as part of WP:AE. However, I do believe that you should not hesitate to copy the message you posted at my talk page to the AE request. I am sincerely saddened that cases of incivility on Wikipedia have reached a new low with these comments, especially so because the comments were made by someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

As usual, your analysis is spot-on and I have no intention of engaging this particular "editor" in any future discourse as it is pointless. Man on a mission will never listen to reason--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.131 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

There is currently an ongoig discussion here in which you are mentioned. You may wish to participate in the discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEDIOUS Edits

You have been removing well-sourced material from articles in cooperation with users who have been banned for using multiple accounts, including Drork, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, Accredited, and others. If you continue to edit war by deleting opposing viewpoints I'll seek a community ban. harlan (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been incessantly edit waring to insert highly POV material into a wide range of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often while deliberately omitting information you have that supports other POVs. You are well aware of the ArbCom ruling yet violate NPOV on a regular basis. Take me to whatever forum you like, we'll see who gets the ban. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA requires that the views of all the parties to the conflict be included and fairly represented. You don't get to delete the published views of the other parties because you find them "highly POV". No one should have to edit war with you to quote the published views of the British Foreign Minister on resolution 242 in the article about that resolution. It is self-evident that the details of his discussions with the government of Israel are relevant. I've got three reliable sources (four counting George Brown's interview) which report that the remarks of the Indian delegate who read George Brown's policy statements into the record had been scripted in advance by Lord Caradon. Browns statements and the analysis by Glenn Perry, Arthur Lall, and Musa Mazzawi belongs in the context section. harlan (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You deliberately omit POVs you know well but don't like from your edits. You do this all the time. We'll see what ArbCom thinks about that when you report me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Enforcement: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For the responsible revert you performed on Erdinç Tekir's participation in the Gaza Flotilla incident. It is remarkable how eagerly people remove well-sourced information that fails to fit a favored narrative. I am always grateful to meet a responsible editor.AMuseo (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Seems like a couple of editors are working pretty hard to keep information about this guy out of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and now someone has removed most of the information on the page I started about him, and put an AFD on it.AMuseo (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit in Jerusalem

Hi, in this edit, if you disagree with one word, why not just change the word you disagree with? --Dailycare (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear 'No more Mr Nice Guy' I assume that you are the person who changed my edit in the Jerusalem section. I was just wondering why this has changed, I feel I am unaware of any previous discussions that have taken place regarding this issue. Was there anything particular that you objected to with my edit?

--Kyuss82 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (GMT)

There has been a lot of discussion about the lead. Check the archives on the talk page. If you don't know how, ask here and I'll be happy to show you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:CIV and unethical behaviour

This is to inform you that I have reported your breach of WP:CIV and unethical behaviour here at WP:WQA.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights in Israel talk page - Comment about Jim Fitzgerald

Your comments about how you feel about Jim Fitzgerald's sources should not be included on the Human Rights in Israel talk page. Please do not replace them.     ←   ZScarpia   13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My comments about repeated violation of WP:RS belong where I put them, in a discussion about an edit than ran afoul of WP:RS. Your striking them out is a violation of WP:TALK. Edit your own comments, not mine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that you are in a position to judge right away about non-reliability of sources. Moreover, the sources that you thought are not reliable have been taken to WP:RSN at [15] as it was advised in discussions and you participated in it. Moreover, a good faith editor would not revert the edit, but would place "relibilty" tag near the disputed source. Your claim of my alledged "repeated violation" is ungrounded.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 14:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. It is perfectly acceptable to remove an edit pending discussion. The onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to prove it belongs in the article.

As for your repeated violations, that would be quite easy to prove. Just on the two articles I saw you edit in the past couple of days, Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands and Zionism, you used multiple sources that an experienced editor such as yourself must know violate WP:RS. When I pointed this out to you on the talk page, you said you'd take care of it and then proceeded to make more edits that violate wikipedia policy while not addressing a single one of the multiple issues I brought to your attention. I then reverted your edits, and will continue to do so when you continue to violate policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, you judge on reliability or non-reliability of the sources and maintain that you judgment is true without any discussion. In this, I see, your biggest misunderstanding of wikirules. Your claim that I did not address a single of your comments is simply NOT TRUE, I started addressing your comments and you confirmed it yourself right here. Your statement - "I then reverted your edits, and will continue to do so when you continue to violate policy." Whereas it is duty of all wikieditors to revert, discuss, or report any violation of Wikirules, BUT in the context of our discussion and you reply in above, your statement is clearly a threat directed against me personally which is violation of WP:PERSONAL, WP:CIV and WP:AGF -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not confirm that you addressed my comments. I noted that despite saying that you will address my comments you continued making contentious edits to the article that were not related to my comments, other than continuing the trend of policy violating edits.

I think we've gone as far as this discussion will go. Please read WP:RS and try to understand what are considered acceptable sources, and please also read WP:BRD and try to understand that it is perfectly fine to revert your edits but it is not ok for you to reinsert them without discussion.

If you feel I am threatening you (which I wasn't), feel free to report me at the appropriate board. I think we're done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is offensive and has given offence. You should remove it. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. Bear in mind that the IP area is under special sanctions and that WP:TALK says:

1. Behavior that is unacceptable: No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.
2. Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial.
   

    ←   ZScarpia   17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

While I feel quite honored that you've taken a personal interest in what I do, I believe your reading of WP:TALK is incorrect. The part you just quoted does not support your removal of my comment.

Please do not take the above as an invitation to continue this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Racism in Israel

Wanted to drop you a note that I reverted this edit you made. The reason is that the article being cited is not an editorial so far as I can tell. If you can show me that it's an editorial I'll gladly self-revert. Cheers. ← George ^talk 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was leaving you a message as you wrote this. See your talk. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's odd, because Comment is free has a subsection specifically titled "Editorials", which this article wasn't in. Regardless, I think you're correct that everything in Comment is free is an editorial, so I've self reverted. ← George ^talk 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Settlements

That need for further discussion applies to "an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section" only, he's quite clear that the full wording of the 2nd statement can be incorporated into the lead of longer articles and stubs. The minor addition of "like all" won't get around the fact that removing that wording from such articles is disruptive.--Misarxist 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: קיצור תולדות ההגנה / כתב יהודה סלוצקי

Don't have it, but I do have the full 8 volumes of the History of the Haganah. I believe the book by Slotzky summarizes these volumes. Tell me if you need anything in particular, although searching for something specific in 8 volumes might prove difficult. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Can you please give me the diff with the citation and any additional info? I would do the investigation myself but time is extremely limited as I do several things at once :) but I will gladly assist you in finding the original text, which I should have either in the Haganah history books or Ben Gurion's diaries. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

you may not be nice,

but you are usually spot-on.[16]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to answer your note, this editor apparently acted by proxy per WP:IAR, so he may be not a violator of the policy, at least in theory.Biophys (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying your misunderstanding

   * All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
         o Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
   * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
         o Reports of editors going over 1RR should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.

per 1

Please don't threaten to report me again if you don't have any basis to report me on. -asad (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:EW. Putting the same thing in every day over a week, despite at least 3 other editors contesting it, is edit warring. Continue with that behavior and I will report you, and you will most likely get blocked. This is not a threat, it's a warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me right now if you feel you have a case. I made two-reverts to registered users. And the rest to a troll whose part in "consensus" does not matter because they don't participate in the discussions. But you do realize, you would be obliged to report me and the IP user at the same time if you were truly interested in being fair. -asad (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that IP editors are not allowed to edit or that they may be reverted on sight. That is not the case. Also, you just opened the discussion about this after trying to change it 7-8 times, so accusing others of not participating in the discussion rings pretty hollow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Don't think for a second that this is the first time I have encountered this editor. How does it ring hollow? Can you show me one topic this editor and I have edited in which that editor ever participated in a discussion? Didn't think so. -asad (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus

There are three sources for that statement, not just the news article from The Guardian.

As far as the Talk page discussion is concerned, I've been following it. When I feel I have something important to say, I'll be sure to contribute to it. I don't think it's necessary to post "Me too" messages. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands

The source does say that, search for 'psychological' and read the containing paragraph. It says that some groups are adding "psychological psychological damage to individuals as well as the lost income" such as a group of Palestinians for their property lost and the group World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries also does this to get its very high numbers. Passionless (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading it correctly. It says that the Palestinians added "psychological psychological damage to individuals as well as the lost income" then it says the Jewish group's estimates are also very high, but doesn't say they include those things, and neither of the two sources the paper uses (which I added to the article) mention them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

I see you're having a spot of bother. Any idea who the sockmaster is? Meanwhile, stick to 1RR if you can (obviously I'm not going to block you for reverting on genuine BLP concerns) and, if you need a quick, uncontroversial block for a breach, ping my talk page. I decided against full protection, because it was easier to block the only autoconfirmed agressor, but if there are more of them, I might reconsider. Anyway, just stopping by to make the offer (of course ANEW and AE are open as normal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe again

Since those socks look they're going to keep coming, I've put the article on level 2 pending changes. This means that any edit by anybody who doesn't have the reviewer permission will have to wait for a review by a reviewer or admin before their edit appears in the "stable version". Hence the above—I figured you might need them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've a feeling they might come back. I'll give it a day or two and if there's no sign of them returning, I'll unprotect it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

R/E: March 2011

It wasn't intentional... honestly! I discovered something strange and I don't recall anything else. Feel free to contest.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't put "i wished hitler died" there. In fact, I was the one reverting the vandalism, not causing it. It was a false warning.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the story. I was reverting vandalism with Twinkle, but someone edited while rolling back meaning it had no power. Therefore, I removed some of the vandalism myself but I got caught up in an edit conflict. I still removed the "La Waffle" bit but didn't notice the "i wish hitler died". The "false" warning caused me to explode- my wikimood will display that. Sorry for bothering you.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK- I have not done wrongdoing- slap the user who issued the warning with a trout.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I do something about it- I'll retire indefinitely if you don't get this straight.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

/* 1949 Armistice Agreements */ Very misleading and incomplete

Editorial policy "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

"In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The new borders of Israel, as set by the agreements.."

What reliable source published that load of twaddle? Armistice lines delineate areas under military control of the respective parties and over which their forces should not cross. Territory under military control is occupied. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “

Furthermore, the armistices were between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. NOT between Israel and Palestine.

The Agreement with Egypt says "Article V 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. "

Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of it’s sovereign frontiers on the 31st Aug 1949, after the armistice agreements were signed. Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.

With Jordan - "Article VI 9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto. "

Again Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.

Furthermore Israel confirmed the territories under Israeli military control in statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948 as being "outside the territory of the State of Israel" and in June 15th 1949 “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”

Israel's declared borders "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" were confirmed 22nd May 1948 before the armistice agreements were signed.

"This was about 18% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it."

This cannot be from a reliable source either, because it's twaddle. Simple maths - 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, amounts to about 34% more than the about 56% the UN partition proposal allotted Israel. 78%-56% = 22% /// 22% of 100% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, is approx 34% of 56%

At the time the armistice agreements had been signed Israel had been recognized and accepted into the UN "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947," Confirmed by statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948.

I suggest: In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The demarcation of Israeli forces, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. This amounted to approximately 50% of the 42% of the territories allotted for the Arab State, approximately 34% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted to, accepted for and declared as, the State of Israel<ref name="notification" />. The demarcation lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line".

---

"The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively"

Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949 Article VI – 1." It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn."

This could fully inform the reader, putting paid to any notion people might have that occupation by Egypt and Jordan were somehow illegal.

I suggest : Under the Armistice Agreements with Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively.

talknic (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlay map Google Earth

The overlay file now has no reference to any blog.

It's a detailed and accurate version giving the information of this map [17] by User:AnonMoos

AnonMoos can rework a very rough map poor quality map deleting information from it and it IS used. I rework a highly detailed and informative map following the exact wording of UNGA Res 181 to within a few metres so that folk can use it with the latest technology (Google earth) and it can't be used? Why have an upload facility?

The section is Aftermath. In the aftermath, Israel has not legally annexed any territory. It should surely be referenced in some manner talknic (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to the map: The original map is published here. The text of the boundaries of UNGA Res 181 is widely available. Is it own 'research' to transfer already defined lines onto an already existing map or merely a case of manipulating graphics? talknic (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited secondary sources proven incorrect by primary sources should not be left to contaminate the issue

In answer to - No More Mr Nice Guy ( 1948 Arab–Israeli War )

I suggest you read WP:V. It's a core policy of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion of material in an article is that it was published by reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretation of primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it., If information from third-party sources can be shown to be unreliable by the primary sources they refer to and/or additional primary source material, the entries should be removed. talknic (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If an editor cites a third party source, the content of which can be shown in discussion with the editor to be false by a primary source, we'd all know the third party source is actually only reliable in order to point to a falsehood. Only a propagandist willfully perpetuates or allows information they know to be unreliable or false to be perpetuated.

e.g., "So and so says "Israel has never defined it's borders" " Should surely read - Contrary to the Israeli Government statement of the 15th May 1948 so and so says "Israel has never defined it's borders".

The source I've cited in this instance, Contrary to the Israeli Government statement of the 15th May 1948 is only a repository for the primary source. It's not an article, not the published opinion of a qualified, scholarly, expert or learned person and not 'own research' as such. talknic (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:RS says Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. You can either find another reliable source that disagrees with the first one (or better yet, several such sources, then you can show the original is a minority view), or you can take the source itself to one of the boards (in this case probably WP:RS/N). The easiest way would be to get consensus for the change you want to make on the article talk page. But you can't decide for yourself that a reliable secondary source is mistaken because of your personal interpretation of a primary source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Although it isn't by my interpretation that the primary source contradicts the reliably sourced falsehood :-)

So to a statement such as "So and so says "Israel has never defined it's borders" " Could one possibly add information in the following manner...

"So and so says "Israel has never defined it's borders". However, refer to the Israeli Government Statement of the 15th May 1948

talknic (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That won't work. You still need a reliable secondary source. See WP:NOR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help. I have some undoing to do... Gawks, Wiki is completely un-reliable if it allows false notions to be perpetuated. Especially when they can be easily shown to be false by primary sources. There must be a better way when no one has yet published reliable, easily available information. There is more 'self research' in finding factual secondary sources than simply clicking on the UN web site. talknic (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if the primary source so obviously says something, an expert would have written something about it. While the specific case we are talking about may seem obvious, there might be things you or I are not aware of (since we're not experts) which would change the meaning or relevance of the primary source.

You can always try to get consensus for the change you want on the talk page. We are not required to put any and all material from a reliable source in an article, and if you convince enough editors that this source should not be included you may be able to get it removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:PSTS

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. talknic (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Are you sure that a letter from some guy to the US government qualifies as a binding deceleration of borders? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is using primary sources to show the unreliability of 'the information cited' by a third party, from a verifiable secondary source. I think the policy answers quite adequately and I shall tailor any postings to meet that requirement.

In view of your incredibly odd question, we appear to have entered a discussion seeking "consensus for the change" of specifics

"Are you sure that a letter from some guy to the US government..."

A) The 'some guy' was an official "Jewish Agency representative" actually tasked with sending "an official letter to President Truman ... formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state."

B) '... qualifies as a binding deceleration of borders?' 1) A letter notifying the President of the USA of the declaration and requesting recognition, is OBVIOUSLY not a declaration of Independence. 2) The declaration itself includes this unreserved statement "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" 3) The letter is "formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state" as an "independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" It was not withdrawn. 4) ".. the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31).

C) On the May 1948 REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE

"Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947."

Reply : "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard."

NB: "under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel" & "adhering to international regulations" Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

British recognition HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 "..that His Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it." talknic (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no. The last thing I want is to go over the content here with you. I was giving an example. Please take the specific arguments you want to make about specific content to the relevant article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK talknic (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Invention of the Jewish People

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

Should Jordan be included in the list, with info about the expulsion of Jews from territory conquered by Jordan in 1948?I.Casaubon (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've been looking at a number of article that seem decidedly unbalanced, or partial truth. I'll come back to this one.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been an interesting expose... thanks

...far more informative than you'd probably care to imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrator review of Old City (Jerusalem) and other I/P articles

This message is to inform you that I have initiated an administrator review of the recent editing at Old City (Jerusalem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other problematic I/P articles. This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Israel/Palestine articles generally. Regards, AGK [•] 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the note. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts on the Hamas Charter page

You have reverted a report from AFP press agency from the website of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting which you claim is not a reputable source but you back up your claim with nothing but your opinion.You have also deleted information from the Anti Defamation League that was relevant to a piece before it and sourced with no good explanation.You have also deleted 3 links that are the source for a line that states that Hamas do not use their charter on their website and now use their manifesto to put forth their views, those 3 links back up that piece.I have come here to get your view and reasoning before taking it further if I have to. Owain the 1st (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already addressed all your points on the article talk page, where this discussion belongs.

Feel free to take it as far as you please. If you read this page, you'll see I'm used to such silly threats. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

I noticed that you have made a personal attack on another editor here [18].Please could you strike that through as personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Adora

In this edit, you removed a line on the illegality of the settlement under international law. I assume that this was simply a mistake by you and as such I have come here instead of AE. I am sure you are aware that WT:Legality of Israeli settlements established a consensus for the inclusion of the line that you removed, and further that an editor was topic banned over the same disregard for that consensus. Kindly restore the material in a timely fashion. Thank you. nableezy - 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of information on a terrorist attack on the settlement. Could you explain why you removed a historical fact that was in the article for months (which according to you means is there by consensus), rather than, say, tagged it with cn or even (I know this is a stretch) spent half a minute at google to see if it actually happened? For the record, I am aware of the line about settlements, have never removed it from any other article and would not have removed it on its own. What I did is revert an illegitimate edit you made. If I inadvertently removed legitimate information, feel free to restore it or have one of your buddies do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All material in articles must be cited to reliable sources. Any material that is not cited to a verifiable reliable source may be removed. My edit was in now way "illegitimate". Your edit did much more than revert the removal of material that was not cited. Your comment that you have never removed the line is simply astonishing, as the edit you made did 2 things; remove that line, and re-add the other line, though you added the source. But as you gave your consent for me to restore the line, I will do so. Bye. nableezy - 19:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is illegitimate to remove an easily verifiable fact that has been in the article for months if not years, particularly for someone with your history of battleground behavior. Unless you're saying the information on the 2002 attack on Adora was "likely to be challenged"? I'm a little disappointed you didn't take this to AE, I would have liked to see you explain your removal. By the way, I'm glad my consent means so much to you. Arrivederci. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont recognize any such history, and it is not "illegitimate" to remove, lets go with the favorite phrase of one of your friends, "contentious material" that is not cited to any source. That it remained uncited for months, or years, does not change the fact that it required a citation and could be removed absent one. That it is "easily verifiable" does not change the fact that it was not cited to a verifiable source, which is a requirement for material in an "encyclopedia". You could have re-added the material with a source, nobody would have said one word. Instead you chose to also remove material cited a reliable source that you know has consensus for. What is "illegitimate" is the removal of material that is both cited to a reliable source and has an actual explicit consensus for. Next time, if you would like me to take something like this to AE just say no when I ask you to restore material you should not have removed. Ill take you up on the offer then. Arrivederla. nableezy - 19:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material"? That's hilarious. Well, maybe it is to someone who wants to hide yet another example of Palestinians entering someone's house and killing a child up close and personal.

Anyway, If you read WP:V closely, you'll see that it says that "In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed...". Now who would challenge the easily verifiable fact there was an attack on Adora in 2002 in which 4 people were killed? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep reading that policy, up to at least the point where it says You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. Yes, I may place a cn template prior to doing so, but I am under no obligation to do so. There are requirements for material in articles, citing a reliable source is one of them. But you are side-stepping the issue. You seem to be arguing that my removal of an unsourced sentence justifies your removal of a sourced sentence, a sentence for which you know there is consensus. If you want to make that argument at AE that is up to you. You will no doubt see my upcoming edits, where I will be implementing the consensus regarding the material on the illegality of these colonies into various articles. If I happen across similarly uncited statements I will likely remove them. nableezy - 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As I believe I explained to you above, I was reverting your removal, not what you added. Please do continue to remove such longstanding, easily verifiable, unlikely to be challenged facts (only ones that put the side you advocate for in a bad light, of course) from articles. It would be amusing to see you try to defend a pattern of such activity at AE. I'm sure it will be an exemplar of wikilawyering. Ciao. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Amusing it would be indeed, especially when contrasted with the argument that [this edit did not revert what I added. nableezy - 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I know you're not a complete idiot so I'm just going to assume you understood what I meant and are trying to play a silly game now. Please feel free to get the last word in and then do move on to something more productive. Bye now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you. I understand what you meant, that isnt the problem. The problem is what you meant is absurd. You did remove a sourced line that you know has consensus. You then tried to shift the discussion as to whether or not I performed an "illegitimate" edit by removing an unsourced line, an accusation that you have yet to retract despite having been quoted, from a WP policy, that editors may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it, and you further ask that I not remove such material despite a policy explicitly says that I may. So, no, I wont be complying with your request, and in the future, when you wish to restore something do not also remove other material that is sourced and has consensus. Bye. nableezy - 00:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Saw your name on the page edit history, thought you might like to have some input on this "controversy". Thanks. JerryDavid89 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#deleting_my_edit

Other accounts

Do you use, or have you used, any other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not, nor have I ever used other accounts on Wikipedia. Didn't you ask me this before? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont honestly recall if I had asked you before. I cant see anything on this talk page though. nableezy - 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Might have been someone else. Anyhow, the answer is no. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Falafel". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you move this comment to Talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falafel? I don't think this is an "issue" as much as it is a "discussion". --Macrakis (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue since the whole request is ridiculous. Mediation after only 3 days and while the first RfC is still open? Anyway, feel free to move it if you want to though, I don't mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you put it in the wrong place... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed with the outcome in favor of Merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

AE request regarding you

Arbitration Enforcement#No More Mr Nice Guy.     ←   ZScarpia   23:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANEW report

Regarding the report you made, you might want to check the diffs. The diff of the first revert is the same diff as the "Previous version reverted to". Is that right? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic

Probably would have gotten quicker action on arbitration enforcement, rather than general edit-warring board... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Hounding had best cease forthwith

NMMMG - Please self revert. You have reverted based on OR to a version which is all OR. You did not revert the previous edit which is OR. You have done this on several occasions, targeting only my contributions. If you do not stop hounding me, I will have no option but to take further action listing every indiscretion on your part ... talknic (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A cursory look at my contributions will show that I don't "target" only your contributions, although I will admit that you make many more unacceptable edits than the average editor. I am not hounding you. In fact, I regularly let some of your edits which hardly improve the encyclopedia slide, just because I don't feel like dealing with the excessive verbiage having to discuss stuff with you results in.

Let me know when you complete your list. I'd like to see it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The list of your reverts on the I/P issue shows a completely different picture. "I'd like to see it" Have it your way ... talknic (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, most editors don't usually see things the same way as you do. This will be interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The world was once flat ... by consensus ... talknic (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. People just thought it was. But to put this in terms you will more easily relate to, the people scrutinizing my actions will be my fellow flat worlders. They will also look at what you've been up to. I can't imagine it will end well for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They just thought it was... and so by consensus, it was, even though it wasn't .. "what you've been up to" Oh? ... talknic (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what the word consensus means. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Don't let that stop you from getting the last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Please stop making false accusations [19] [20] ... talknic (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you think those diffs prove. I believe we already had a discussion about you posting diffs with a large amount of intermediate edits by other users. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- More false accusations? The 1st [21] there are no edits in between. And the 2nd Line 324: [22] there are no edits in between. Please stop making false accusations ... talknic (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to suck up my time with your nonsense? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG By making false accusations you are disrupting discussions, sucking up everyone else's time, my time and as of consequence your own. There is no compromise I can offer for you hitting the ball into your own court, scoring lower and lower....and .....lower. Eventually you will hit yourself out of the game. Please stop making false accusations and I will have no need to try to resolve this issue per WP policy, on your Talk page thx ... talknic (talk)

That's hilarious. Anyway, why don't you go ahead and report me, as I have suggested to you several times in the past, and we'll let the community decide who's behaving properly and who isn't? The fact your edits almost never receive any support from other editors should tell you something, but unfortunately I doubt it will. You don't even understand the rules of the game you think I'm going to hit myself out of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - A more amicable and the only solution is you to cease your inappropriate behaviour, thx ... talknic (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My behavior is appropriate. It will not cease. Now either go do something about it or not but stop wasting my time. As past experience may have lead you to anticipate at this point, I will not be responding further to your inane accusations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See [23] Please self revert and stop hounding me ... Thx ... talknic (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request

Hi NMMNG,

I've uploaded the three JSTOR articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War article

I explained the issue with the "War of Liberation" wording in more detail on the article talk page right as you were making the revert. As for the declaration, would "following Israel's declaration" be more suitable wording for you?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1rr on 1948 Arab–Israeli War

It appears that these two edits 2 1 violate the 1rr restriction. You might want to self-revert. Jd2718 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Concurrent edits are counted as one edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'll withdraw the observation, in any event, as one seems to have led to fair discussion. Jd2718 (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, concurrent edits really are counted as one edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Let the gloating begin

LOL. Thanks for helping me gather information on the depth of corruption in Wikipedia Dude ... talknic (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I warned you at least 10 times that your behavior will get you banned, but you never listen. You weren't gathering information on the depth of corruption in Wikipedia, you were just being yourself. This isn't the first place you were banned from, is it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Being banned from Wikipedia or the Guardian are miniscule little blips. Gloat away. Your transparency matches your soul ... dude ... talknic (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Enjoy your vacation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth RfC

I recommend that you revert your recent edit. There is an open RfC. Your statement in the edit summary 'Discussion seems to have died down' is not a good rationale. Consider asking at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. It is silly to get into trouble for something where there is a procedure to use that most people would respect. Check AE for 'Nazareth' if you don't believe me. Nazareth is a certified Hot Button Issue, flashing in all caps, in case you haven't noticed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course. I forgot that was an RfC. The section is huge and I was looking at the bottom of it when I noticed there wasn't any significant discussion for a couple of weeks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1948 Palestinian exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Black (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts at Palestine

I find it disturbing to see that in the last 3 days, you've reverted 3 times on Palestine. In between the first two edits was a time frame of 26 hours and 4 minutes, and in between the second two was a time frame of 24 hours and 10 minutes. It would appear that you are attempting to get in your 1 revert per day as soon as possible. Please note that, just as with 3RR, 1RR is not an entitlement. Please consider this a formal warning under WP:ARBPIA to neither edit war nor give the appearance of edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that I'm the only one who got this warning, as if I was edit warring or giving the appearance of edit warring with myself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies--when I first looked at the edit history, I thought that you were the only one who had reverted more than twice, but I see now that User:Oncenawhile reverted the same number of times with about the same minimal durations between edits. I have warned them as well. No one else, though, has reverted more than once in the last week, so no one else needs to be warned. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology

It was not my intention to edit anything on,your talk page. I must have clicked on or touched "undo" without realizing I had activated it. My apologies. --Chefallen (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

No worries. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

I understand this is a contentious article and is under the WP:1RR rule, to which I assume you are also required to abide, but I am curious as to why you deleted the category which I added, Category:Conspiracy theorists. That is an obvious one if you have read the last section of the article in question. You don't have to (and shouldn't necessarily) delete everything wholesale. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it at the end of the long diff. But could we have this discussion on the article talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, meet me there. Ciao. Quis separabit? 04:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

UN Partition Plan for Palestine talk page

Just in case you haven't noticed it, I've addressed a request to you, dated 31 January, at the UN Partition Plan talk page.     ←   ZScarpia   11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to have to respectfully refuse your request. I hope that's not going to put me "one step below Neo-Nazi level". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you're neither going to justify your comments or strike them out? Is the last bit a way of indicating that you're a supporter of Yisrael Beiteinu too? In any case, as with Nableezy, you are, of course, entitled not to be excluded from the I-P area just because of your political inclinations.     ←   ZScarpia   23:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was an oblique reference to your feeling "duty bound to remove personal attacks". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What I actually wrote was: "In fact, what does motivate me in cases such as this is that, if I see a remark being made to another editor which looks way beyond the bounds of acceptability, I feel duty-bound to do something about it." I didn't write anything about feeling "bound to remove personal attacks" per se. That was also written in a different case to the one you linked to, where I was responding to a comment by Boris to the effect that Nableezy's political views made him an undesirable person to have editing in the I-P area.     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. I was too lazy to go look for the exact wording, although I did remember it was the kind of statement that would make an editor who calls another editor "one step below a neo-Nazi" seem like quite the hypocrite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting once again. I did not call anyone "one step below a neo-Nazi". You need to pay more attention to what people actually write and stop attributing to them warped interpretations that you've invented. Since you implied that I'm a hypocrite, perhaps you won't mind me asking why you didn't object when Boris was suggesting that Nableezy be excluded from editing in the IP area because of his political views? Also, don't you think that some editors might have found it less than credible that you wrote sentences such as, "I wish someone could explain to me why civility just isn't taken seriously," in the AE request which concerned Unomi?     ←   ZScarpia   15:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the sarcasm went right over your head. Do you really think that saying "some editors" "might think" "X is <insert personal attack here>" changes the essence of what you're saying?

Anyway, is there anything else I can help you with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Boris suggested that Nableezy's political views, which he'd been asked to give by, evidently, a pro-Israeli-inclined editor, made him an unsuitable person to edit in the I-P area. In response, I pointed out to Boris that one of the other parties to the case was professing political views which would seem ultra-extreme to some editors on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I asked Boris how it would look to him if those editors tried to have that party banned from editing in the I-P area in the same way that he was suggesting Nableezy should be. THAT was the essence of what I wrote, not what you're suggesting. Do you really think that there aren't editors here who would think supporters of Yisrael Beiteinu aren't "one step below Neo-Nazis" (or even worse). If you browse the pages of Haaretz, you'll even find Jewish Israelis who think of Yisrael Beiteinu and its supporters in that way.

As it happens, you can help me. You can help me by toning down the aggression a few notches, by taking your "sarcasm" (your word) somewhere other than Wikipedia, by not spouting your demonisations of my motives on talk pages, by not misrepresenting what I write, by trying to read the intended meaning in what I write rather than making erroneous assumptions, by remembering that Wikipedia is about what sources say, not what editors think the truth is, and by bearing in mind that Wikipedia editors are supposed to attempt to present points of view that they disagree with (which requires a willingness to make an effort to discover what those other points of view are).     ←   ZScarpia   12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You could take some of your own advice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And which advice would that be, or are you making a statement that you can't support once again?     ←   ZScarpia   22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at the end of this discussion (which was the full extent of your participation) would fit quite a few of the accusations you just made against me above. That's just an example off the top of my head. I'm not going to waste my time looking for more, although I think we both know those exist.

Now, if you could kindly stop wasting my time with what "some editors" "might think" is a steaming pile of hypocrisy, that would be awesome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wishful thinking again. I think that you're the one wasting your own time. And mine.

If you give just one example to justify something you're alleging, try to make sure that it does give at least a reasonable appearance of confirming the thing that you're claiming. When it doesn't, you just make yourself look, in some and varying degree, desperate, disingenuous, dishonest, deluded, irrational and a chancer.

I don't doubt that there are some editors who think that I'm a hypocrite. And they are right to some extent: everyone, including me, is a hypocrite to some extent, it's part of being human. If someone whose opinion I respected told me I was being hypocritical to a remarkable degree, I'd sit up and take notice. On the other hand, if it was someone who I thought was more from the despicable end of the spectrum, then I probably wouldn't pay very much attention at all. I assume that it would be the same for you.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep coming back to my talk page, but I'm wasting your time? That's funny.

Look, maybe you can find an editor you perceive as a political opponent who's actually impressed by your passive-aggressive bullshit, or maybe someone who cares what someone like you thinks about them. Neither is happening here. So feel free to get the last word in, and then do move on. Bye now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I get email notifications on changes to this page, which drew my attention to the fact you returned half an hour after writing your last comment to do some copy-editing. I see you've done that with almost every comment you made on this page. You're really investing quite a bit of emotional energy in this nonsense, reading and re-reading what you wrote to make something completely unproductive come out "just right". That's a little sad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Writing comments you can't back up is a waste of your time, my time and everybody else's time. Stop doing it and you won't have me visiting your talk page asking you to stop. I don't care whether people agree with me politically or not. In your case, what bothers me is your tendency to make unpleasant personal comments which you can't justify or substantiate (a form of incivility) and to sometimes, as with the Jerusalem article, indulging in ludicrous point of view pushing. You're right that copy-editing my remarks is, though, a bad habit of mine. I should try harder to get it right the first time.     ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your unexplained Undoing of multiple edits, with explanations, made to Rachel's Tomb

I made a number of individually explained edits to this article. You reverted them all describing them as "not balance, but obfuscation" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel%27s_Tomb&diff=480958242&oldid=480956885 Please consider each edit. For example to seperate names that the tomb is known by into "names it is also known by" and "known by Muslims as" makes no sense to me, and I do not understand how you defend it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the previous discussions on that page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In your ungrammatical reply to my post on that page you say you cannot be bothered to discuss it. May i suggest you do not bother to mass revert my individually explained edits as well. It is nonsense to divide names into those used by Moslems, and people in general.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello No More Mr Nice Guy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Iloveandrea

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR Violations

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.VivaWikipedia (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your Rfc

In thinking about the issue, it seems clear that one cannot expect consensus in this area (I-P conflict area). There is no consensus when the vote! is roughly 50-50. There is apparently no Wikipedia policy on this, only the one essay that JJG posted(WP:NOCONSENSUS). If you rely on a single administrator to determine this as was apparently done last time, you will still get 50% disgruntled people. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better served by an actual policy on no consensus, similar to the essay? In scanning the old set of arguments it is striking how that older discussion did seem dominated by one particular point of view, with very few of the opposing editors offering their opinion at that time. Perhaps they were not aware of the discussion? Anyway, your Rfc does not seem to include eliminating the template altogether only revising it, and a willingness to accept a single administrator's determination. Is that interpretation correct? Before supporting or opposing your proposition, I would like to understand it. Thank you. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Once the topic is open for discussion, there may be no consensus for the current wording so it would have to be removed. There may be consensus for changes or additions. Who knows. I am willing to accept a single administrator's determination. That's how things work here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comment at RSN

I'm a little confused at your recent comment at RSN.[24]. Shrike offered a solution to this issue a month ago in line with your comments at RSN[25], which I have consistently supported. My objection is to making a call that the exact number of Arabs killed by Jews was 6 when we have a number of high quality academic sources that report a single incident in which seven Arabs were murdered by Jews. Dlv999 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well poisoning not supported by sources.

Could you please explain what ths means?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your un necessary mass Land of Israel revert for one word

NMMNG --- Your MASS revert -- Reason given "official jewish name"? you must be joking -- : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=465970265&oldid=465937085 . Change Jewish if you think Hebrew isn't a Jewish Language. See Talk [26]
WHY?, when a partial revert is possible and recommended
1) Revert - The chronological order of events in the lede? I didn't make up the dates
Revert - "a" when "the" no longer fitted the moved dialogue?
Revert - a reference to the Lon Mandate which shows the necessary chronological delineation of Palestine from TransJordan?
Revert - The Arab naming on the stamp, putting the section in breech of WP:NPOV
Revert - The CN pertaining to the chronological move? It's courtesy to point out that the move necessitated clarification of a partial statement.
NMMNG -- The Article is Tagged:

Which calls for editors to attempt to address unsourced statements, et al
Please undo, with the exception of the one word (Jewish) you objected to ( if you believe Hebrew isn't a Jewish language ) -- thx talknic (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your continual hounding must stop

I have done my best to adhere to the policies, answer every question you have put my way. Given reliable secondary sources and provided statements per Policy for Primary Sources. Taken issues to the talk pages per policy. Made suggestions as to how NPOV might be addressed. You have on the other hand done nothing but obstruct. Please cease hounding .. thx talknic (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again with the hounding nonsense? I edited these articles before you even joined wikipedia. Last time you accused me of hounding you got topic banned for 6 months. Next time will probably be indefinitely. I could easily make an AE case right now just based on your tag bombing the leads of multiple articles with ridiculous reasons. You need to stop trying to push your personal theories and POV into articles and start using RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead . talknic (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember what happened the last two times you told me to go ahead and report you? Again, not sure why I bother, but I suggest you take a moment and consider you might be once again walking into something you have a limited understanding of, and instead of bluster try to modify your behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine Hebrew name

I noticed this at the time, but thought it may be a violation to tell you then. Re this, you can use {{lang-he-n|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}} or {{lang-he-n|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (‎א"י)}} instead of {{lang-he-n|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}}. The three are, as far as I can tell, displayed exactly the same.

1. Template:Lang-he-n
2. Template:Lang-he-n
3. Template:Lang-he-n

The trick is to type out whatever you want in a program that does right-to-left text correctly, then copy and paste while typing out the template on wiki. It wont look right in the code because rtl end parenthesis will be read as coming after the last word, and in left-to-right after is to the right. Otherwise you can play around with the lrm control character. nableezy - 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew c&p worked some of the time, but I didn't think the source was the issue. When you say a program that does right to left correctly, you mean something like Microsoft Word with a right to left template? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

For you actually typing something, yeah Word or any other program that has a rtl font available, Wordpad might also work. Or, and this is what I usually just do, use the translate box in translate.google.com. Select the language you are typing in as the translate from, then just type out what you want, with the parenthesis how you want, and copy from there. nableezy - 00:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember what I tried with at the time, either a browser or notepad or both, but it didn't look right in the preview. Parenthesis and quote marks are the worst. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Statements from the lead 1948 Arab-Israeli War

There was no consensus to remove the statement. Please self revert. Thx talknic (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, please keep the discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr Franklin

Great spot. How the hell did you find that?! Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to see if what he was saying is right. And that was one of the first links. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

3 admins

Thoughts on who? We could do this off-wiki if you really, really want. nableezy - 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know that many admins. Ignoring those you probably won't agree to, I'd be fine with HJ Mitchell, Ed, Georgewilliamherbert or any admin I've never seen before. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not include those who have been involved with AE, but I'll ask around. nableezy - 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Better the devil you know...A rfc conducted by admins that are trusted and whose neutrality will not be called into question is probably preferable. Ankh.Morpork 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Avraham if he is willing to moderate the RFC, and if he has suggestions on who would be a good choice to be among those who close. If you want to ask him to forward you that email chain, I dont mind. Among the names that I am open to are: NYBrad (not sure a sitting arb will want to touch this though), Moonriddengirl, Black Kite, and MastCell. Problem with any of those? nableezy - 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really familiar with any of them. Perhaps we should have this discussion on the project page, so if anyone else has any objections they can bring them up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to move this there. nableezy - 21:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for MastCell and Black Kite to be removed from the list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

NYB recused. I seriously doubt there will be three names that will both have widespread support (I dont think unanmity qualifies for even a pipe dream) and will be willing and able. Im not even sure how to go about ascertaining the level of support and either later or concurrently seeing the willingness to participate. nableezy - 06:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we have several options.

1. Let Avraham (or whoever we get to moderate) chose two other admins at his discretion, and we agree to accept whatever he decides.
2. We each provide a few names, remove those that are objected to (the objections I noted above are from people I trust, and I believe you'd accept as well if you knew who they are), and then ask them to participate.
3. Go to one of the boards where admins hang out, ask who would like to have one of their eyeballs removed with a spoon help us out here, see if there are any objections after they agree, and move on from there.

We only need two more people. It should be possible to get that many. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I get to choose, I choose option 2. nableezy - 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll throw out a name, Dennis Brown. To my knowledge, he has had no I-P involvement at all and strikes me as a patient and reasonable admin. Ankh.Morpork 13:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is quite amusing, it's much like jury selection. NMMNG, you've just used up two of your peremptory challenges.Ankh.Morpork 13:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with him either. I saw him at AE a couple of times, but have yet to develop an opinion about him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

just as a matter of curiosity, are there any admins with long experience of the I/P area whom both sides would find acceptable? Why a rank outsider is necessary to secure neutrality is not clear. I don't know of one admin whose judgement I haven't privately (musing) questioned in one or two cases, but at the same time, they have retained my respect for their overall coherence. If there are none, then seeking the angel/devil you don't know won't solve anything.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a few at the top of this thread. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The admins that are active in the actual administering of the topic area at AE would lose any claim to impartiality or uninvolvement if they were to make what is essentially a decision on article content. I don't think you can close this discussion, either way, and continue being active in enforcing ARBPIA, unless we get a "no consensus" repeat. There isnt going to be a "consensus" based on the numbers. One "side" is going to line up one way, and the other "side" will line up the other way. The only way this gets settled is if there is some group that is able to decide which argument best applies the policies that actually matter (the content ones). For that decision to have legitimacy, it needs to be made by people who are regarded as capable and impartial by those most vested in the issue. But it also needs admins who are actually willing to make a decision, which is why I think NMMNG objections above are ill-advised, but thats his prerogative. nableezy - 06:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with what you're saying, although I think an AE admin who already has a reputation for being impartial won't lose it over this.

I received some objections over the admins I mentioned above. Since we all understand we need admins who are perceived as impartial, and since there's a pretty large pool of admins available, I see no harm in removing a few names. I deliberately didn't include names of admins I thought you'd object to, but I can add them for you to remove if that would make things seem more balanced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know that there actually is a large pool available. We need people that will make a decision, and that subset of admins is pretty limited. I knew MC would be objected to by somebody (not you), but I think the basis for that objection is spurious so I threw it out there. The objection to BK surprised me though. He or she has always struck me as one of the better admins around. But whatever, moving on, we dont have anybody that has agreed, and we dont have a list of people that we agree to, though I think we have one admin that nobody has objected to, Moonriddengirl (who hasn't responded yet). Who else you got for suggestions? nableezy - 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We've pretty much exhausted the list of admins I'm familiar with whom I thought you wouldn't object to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Then move on to the ones you think I would object to but that you think are fair and would be a good choice. You never know, I might surprise you. nableezy - 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And what you think about Xavexgoem? nableezy - 19:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever encountered Xavexgoem.

How about Sandstein? AGK? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No and no. Sandstein is a "by the numbers" type of admin. I can almost guarantee that he will say no consensus for any of these types of discussions. Even looking at AfDs where he made a keep/delete decision, the rationale is based on the numbers (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting). I think he is fair, but I dont think he will be willing to make a determination of strength of argument as applied to WP policies. I'd rather not get into why I'd rather not have AGK as one of three here. nableezy - 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's all I got. Two of the three admins I suggested above are not active in AE. How strongly do you feel about it being a bad idea to have AE admin do this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very. I would say no to GWH for other reasons. nableezy - 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK then. Want to put MRG and Xa (can I object based on name? Those are annoying to type) up at IPCOLL and see if anyone else has anything to say? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Though nobody has actually asked X and MRG hasn't yet responded. nableezy - 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They're your suggestion so you do it. I'll note I don't object. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, fine. nableezy - 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, by your lack of enthusiasm, I assume you're not keen on Ed or HJ Mitchell? Thoughts on Malik Shabazz? If this impasse continues, I am prepared to nobly shoulder the responsibility and and humbly offer myself for this onerous task ;-) Ankh.Morpork 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I like Ed, I think he is one of the better admins around. That doesnt change my view that an admin enforcing ARBPIA shouldnt come near a content decision in the topic area. Malik is an involved editor, he cannot take any admin actions in the topic area (and I like Malik too, more than most). nableezy - 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It isnt going anywhere on the IPCOLL page, I dont think anybody actually cares about actually settling the issue, or at least nobody is saying they care. I havent heard back from MRG yet either, about to ask X if he is interested. Ill try to think of who else would be good. Have a problem with asking xeno (but again, not sure a sitting arb will want to, though Brad's recusal was unrelated to arbcom)? nableezy - 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with xeno either, so go ahead. How about Fiflefoo? I've seen him around RS/N. Seems to be a stickler for policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an admin nableezy - 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Donno why I thought he was. Oh well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

MRG said she would be willing. nableezy - 05:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Any news from Avraham? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought I already told you, but I guess not. Avi didnt want to participate in closing the discussion. He asked MRG and NYB for me (they were his suggestions, along with a few others). I am still hoping he will be willing to moderate the discussion, even if he doesnt want to close it. But I havent pressed him on that. nableezy - 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

John Carter? nableezy - 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that familiar with him either. From the little I've seen he seems like a reasonable guy. Ask him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. nableezy - 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Avraham cant moderate any A-I discussion. He let Breein get away with socking when the evidence showed 100% it was him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy seems to think he's ok, but I won't tell anyone who to object to. That's up to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote above that Avi already declined. And as far as admins go, Id take Avi against nearly every other one here. Ill say that to either "side", and people that I respect a great deal (namely Nish) would no doubt say the same. So SD, calmly let that go. Avi did what he thought right, and I for one am not going to question his judgment on the topic. nableezy - 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Avi, I have seen at ArbCom that several arbs recuse from taking part in a specific case if they feel that they might not be capable of being able to address the matter objectivity, or if they think they might be accused of being less than objective and thus prejudicing the outcome. In an extremely contentious field like this, I can see how Avi might wish to recuse, even if only for the latter reason, and even if I myself might join others here in asking for him to do this, and I probably would.

I actually came to this page because I got a notification about my being a candidate for one of the three positions. Honestly, I am aware that some editors interested who deal with Judaism-related material consider me to be biased against Judaism, I think inaccurately. That could, in some ways, be taken as carrying over to Israeli/Palestinian matters, I suppose. On that basis, I am not sure that I would necessarily be acceptable to all those involved, or perhaps to others who might become involved later. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure that there would be any others who might receive similar accusations. Personally, I tend to think I might not be among the best candidates, but I understand that there might be some trouble finding 3 admins who could not be challenged in some way. If you would have difficulty finding others, I would be willing to take it, but I do tend to think that, maybe, my objectivity might be challenged by some editors. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that if anyone has any objections we'll hear about them shortly. Once/if we do get 3 names we'll post at IPCOLL for any final objections, so I think right now all we need to know is that you're willing to do it. If you have any other suggestions for people who'd be good for this, we could obviously use some more candidates. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tznkai? nableezy - 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing him around, but not anything specific. Anyway, no objection from me. Go ahead and ask him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on talk page

"A. If it's reported by RS it can go in the article even if some editor think it's "piling on"." You're totally right. It's just I'm so busy and really don't have that much time to argue back and forth about this. If other editors, like you did, comment on it and give their opinion, it'd be more productive. "B. Did an editor just seriously say she thinks she knows what the subject of this article meant and that's a reason to keep information out of the article?" - very confused... are you referring to me? I'm inclined to think not, since Carol is a female name and nothing about me indicates my gender, but just want to check. --Activism1234 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that was to Carrol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

No.Were I a Jew, I'd have no problem in saying 'I'm a Jew' in the face of the world. Since I'm not, and hear a lot of people use it with an edge of innuendo that makes me hear a stupid insensitive resonance from the past, I am obliged, as a non-Jew with certain prophylactic sensitivities about allowing my being-in-the-world to be contaminated by public prejudices, to avoid it. Philologos has a point, as often, but the argument doesn't affect me, and I still call people, if required, by the passport they bear, since that is neutral. I'm not, as you suggest, an 'enabler' of antisemitism in this quite personal choice. I may be a cunt in many regards, but that was, well, unjust and overreading. I hope we can drop this.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, you brought it up. The first time I let it go but since you brought it up again I told you what I think. I thought you might not be aware of the implications of your personal choice. Sometimes people try to be sensitive but the result is the exact opposite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this issue is addressed at the bottom of the "Name and etymology" section in the Jews article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of Israeli assassinations again

No one else seems to object. I don't know how to change the names of pages, but I think you or perhaps GabrielF might consider making the move I suggested. Prompted by seeing it just edited again. I'd forgotten the point.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Well, the dispute flared up again. Apparently the other editor, despite ignoring the notices and reminders posted on his talk page, became active again as soon as I edited my proposed changes into the article. I'm trying to engage him in a discussion on the article's talk page, and your input and advice would be appreciated. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: the dispute has once again reached an impasse. I've asked the other editor to just post his proposed version next to mine (see this section of the talk page) so we can try getting a third opinion again, and I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to provide it. If not, I'll just re-file at WP:3O. Thanks! Indrek (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's false

	Of course it's false
	“ "Of course it's false!" ---NMMNG ” An original barnstar Activism1234 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Shalom !

thank you very very much for fixing the article about jerusalem !. i write in wikipedia 8 years and in the last month some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel and replace pictures of israel. פארוק (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10 once again

Hi, there's once again a dispute at 16:10 (this issue just won't die, I guess). Even though the article sort of settled into a consensus, now a newly registered user (User:Yokononos) has come along and completely removed the previously disputed paragraph, with hardly any explanation given. I naturally reverted and asked the user to explain in a bit more detail, but then User:Urklistre jumped in and reverted back, saying the explanation (ie. the word "speculations") sounds reasonable and insisting that everyone but me wants that content removed anyway. I'm trying to engage them both on the talk page, as usual, but I'd appreciate it you could also take a quick look and maybe chime in.
Also, I must say the whole thing looks a bit fishy. Given User:Urklistre's past conduct, I wouldn't put it past him to resort to sockpuppetry, but there's probably not enough evidence at the moment to file a report for investigating this. Indrek (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Mentioned. Regards.71.198.248.236 (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

See [27]. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

AGK said (over there) that you need to be blocked. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen around here lately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that's the right way to go about solving that issue. Also, I noticed you notified only a few editors who agree with your position. You should tell people from the other side of the debate as well, otherwise you're opening yourself to accusation of WP:CANVASS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No I noticed only those editors who were not invited before by another editor. However, I sent request, as far as I know now to all who took part in the discussion. Some editors may have been double invited.--Tritomex (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Flicker picture used without proper permission

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Vandalized_grave.jpg As far as I see there is no permission for the usage of this photo. More so no place, data or any further information is given about this photo. As it is highly sensitive photo I guess such permission is required. I am wondering wetter I should ask for the deletion of this photo.I would appreciate your op pinion on this subject. --Tritomex (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know much about deletion of photos, but since it's not obvious where it came from (other than flicker) then I'm not sure it can be used in articles. It doesn't come from a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures dont need to come from reliable sources, in fact it is rare that we can use a picture from a reliable source due to the fair-use requirements Wikipedia sets for using copyrighted works. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images, specifically Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them. nableezy - 01:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this is not some kind of joke. When Sean started tagging images for no RS in similar circumstances no one said a peep. Why the change of heart? I personally believe it is OK since common sense and the standard is to use properly licensed images from Flickr. However, I don't know if the line Nableezy brings up is based on editors or uploaders to a completely unrelated project. All in all, this is a reminder to you two to start the settler discussion before I do it for you. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether situations are analogous. My concern in the case I think you are referring to was with unsourced contentious narratives being used in captions. I think it's Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_62#Refs_for_image_captions_and_caption_neutrality. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know that much about photo issues, although I don't think it would make sense that we could use any photo some random person uploaded to flicker with any description they chose. On the other hand, that wouldn't be the first thing I saw here that didn't make sense, so who knows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Shift

Hi NMMNG,

I have the feeling -but I may be wrong- that you shifted more and more radical. I think that this is due to the strong involvment in conroversial and difficult topic where no censensus is achievable due to the misunderstand, the fears and/or the bad faith of people. For your pleasure and for you own, I think that it may be profitable sometimes to take some distance and/or to focus on other topics.

My two cents.

Rgds, Pluto2012 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about, but there's no doubt this place is getting crappier by the day. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

It is just a global feeling and doesn't refer to any particular discussion.

Good continuation :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation of Jerusalem capital issue has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I am guessing from your prolonged silence in the matter that you are not interested in participating in mediation. Is that correct? --Ravpapa (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I still have two days to decide and last time I looked only about half the people replied there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please respond to the request for mediation already? The deadline to do so is fast approaching. Some of the participants listed there could be omitted due to their low involvement in the dispute, but you're not one of them. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [28], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

AE

Curious - What is the process of withdrawing an AE you initiated? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Greater Israel: New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies

No More Mr Nice Guy Please state precise the exact claim that I am making. Rather I am simply stating objectively what is on the website. If you don't want the world to know what is on the website, I suggest you email the CEO and suggest he removes it. I did that some time ago, without success it. Trahelliven (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to describe what's on that web site. It's called WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

I went through WP:V fairly carefully and could not find any where it says: You need a reliable source to describe what's on a web site.

Take the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, with which we are both familiar. The opening paragraph summarises Resolution 181(II) without the necessity of an intermediate Reliable Source. The wording of the Resolution speaks for itself. The same applies to describing the Report dated 3 September 1947 from UNSCOP further in the article.

I certainly could not use the website as a source that Gaza is part of Israel but I am not doing that. I just described what the website says. Trahelliven (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't do that. You are not a reliable source. What happens if I look at it and want to describe it differently? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy If you describe the document differently, you suggest how it should be described and with any luck we come to an arrangement on how it should be described. That is exactly what happened with the first paragraph in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. When you go to a Reliable Source, there is the same problem. I might say it means one thing and someone else says it means something else. With luck we agree on what it does mean. Trahelliven (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, seriously, that's not how things work here. It's not up to editors to describe maps. You need a secondary reliable source both to show that it's important enough to put in the article per WEIGHT, and to get the information from. Your (or mine) description of a map on a random site is OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

Can I take it then that you would be quite happy if I just delete the reference to the map and leave in the following?:-

The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. (with the link) Trahelliven (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you are still not a reliable source (in the wikipedia sense) for this information. Try asking at RS/N if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken up your suggestion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Trahelliven (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: 16:10 again

Hey, thanks for your advice! I filed an SPI, and according to the admin who handled it (and the previous cases), "Obvious sock is obvious". Thanks for taking the time! Indrek (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Declaration of Independence [29] - Context and content

Because I have quoted you on this page, you might like to take part in the discussion. Trahelliven (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning Israeli Declaration of Independence has a 1RR restriction on it, this means you can only revert 1 time.

You have reverted twice. Do not revert again or you may be blocked for doing this.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

See Wikipedia:ANI#User "No More Mr Nice Guy". I'm assuming your edits don't violate 1RR because reverts of IPs do not count toward the total. Nonetheless a discussion at Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nice Guy, I was coming to inform you that you don't exist yet but I am late...

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

UN Partition plan

the wording was Pappes - is he less highly thought of than Benny Morris? genuine question - is Pappe an esteemed figure. whatever , the language was borrowed from pappe - and he wouldn't have invented stuff. do you read the lead, as is, as not in the least biased? Sayerslle (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally I do believe Pappe is less highly thought of than Morris, but that doesn't really matter. You can't put Pappe's POV in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, particularly in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

well the words were from Pappes book, but they were just statements of fact and statistics - unless you can point out a 'point of view' in what came from the bits , - and the 2nd bit - do you read the lead as unbiased? Sayerslle (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this to the article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

no, forget it. i was asking you specific questions, partly about your edit summary and then you saying there was pov in straight facts, and how you saw the lead as it is written up at the moment. i get the general picture i think Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Israel POV and vandalism

This important information was removed from an article by Pluto2012, despite he is the only one who inserted repeated information about territorial and demographic changes. Perhaps you could restore the missing content and finish this nonsense. Thanks.--201.231.95.189 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your WP:User page

You might consider writing something (anything) on your WP:User page. It would get the red out of your edit summaries. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like it red. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. It's your user page, and you get to do with it what you want. Sorry, I should have not been pushy, and no offense was intended. However, I did send you a signature, which would give you red when you sign, but not in edit histories. Your call. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't offended at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited October 2012 Haaretz poll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Silence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence: Purpose of Declaration of 14 May 1948

At 02:42, 13 December 2012‎, you madw a contribution to Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence: Purpose of Declaration of 14 May 1948. It is now on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard I listed you as a participant but I accidentally used Mister instead of Mr in your username. You may wish to take part. Trahelliven (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there NMMNG, can I ask if you intend to take part in the DRN listed about this topic? I notice you weren't hugely involved so I'll leave it until 1200GMT before we start the discussion. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources for "Palestinian Right of Return" & other Arab-Israeli issues

Hi, your 'buddy' ;) Nableezy is reverting an edit on "Palestinian Right of Return" tonight...and in case Nableezy reverts it again (especially if I forget to come back), please check up on this in a few days or a week. His basis was to call the following source WP:RS, despite that WP:RS section 4.7 makes it clear that such a source CAN be cited so long as its controvertial/opinionated claims ARE attributed as such (which I mostly or completely did, but you can check me on that point, I'm pretty tired as I write this), and...

4 other things ALSO make it a reliable source:

1. The author's PhD & other uni studies (@ USA's top-ranking uni's, at that) are pertinent to the subject matter he expounds upon as seen by clicking here combined with...

2. Recognition as a notable expert from BOTH the political right (see last link) AND the left (Huff Post).

3. Accolades or recognition about the JewishVirtualLibrary.com site from: Assoc of College & Research Libraries, as well as PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Fox, LATimes, Bloomberg, BBC, BusinessWeek, USA Today, & CBS... AND Britannica & Study Web... AND King's College, London, MSU, & other uni's.

4. The author's material which I specifically linked to/cited, and especially his most controversial claims, DO cite sources that also qualify for WP:V, RS, etc. So I re-revert Nableezy right back, and gave a few reasons but nothing as in-depth as the above (you or I can point out the above if Nableezy escalates it by reverting again tomorrow)

My changes also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on the Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): that the lede doesn't really give any logical REASONS to support Israel's position (i.e. seems similar to what you wrote on the Talk page about anti-Israelis desiring to "define" our position, as well as their own--and then making weak-ass arguments for us to make us appear foolish) and my source also addresses the desire of the guy on the Talk page for the pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak-ass arguments (I also used him as a source to edit some other sections which had an imbalance of strong anti-Israel arguments matched to incomplete, spurious, or almost ridiculous pro-Israel arguments). Please review & revise my work if you find that I've committed any violations of WP policy (rather than deleting it wholesale as Nableezy desires to even delete parts that I'm 100% certain don't violate WP policy & are important to provide balance to some pro-Palestinian arguments that were going totally un-rebutted within this-or-that section). Thanks if you can give that input. Also, we CAN point out that many sources in that article tread on WP:RS way more (or in some cases only a little) compared to my chosen source (JewishVirtualLibrary) if Nableezy et al really wanna push their luck: Le_Monde_Diplomatique#Controversies (even runs 911 conspiracy theories, also FAR-left/fringe), standforfacts.org (no scholarliness), al-awda (even claimed a guy later-convicted of "conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," Al-Arian, was likely only a “pattern of profiling and targeting the community" and Hussein Ibish (their rep who's cited separately in that WP article) saying "the presumption has to be that this is a political witch-hunt, a vendetta...very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism": makes anyone sane trust their judgment, right!? The presumption "HAS TO BE..."?!? They woulda been smarter to "presume" nothing cos they got proven WRONG.), ArabHRA.org, J. Cook: see antiwar.com#Reactions, Future of Freedom Foundation, Benny Morris as critiqued by many as cited on user_talk:Pluto2012 AND for "distorting Hertzl" in: meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited, Benny Morris gets his vengeance by critiquing the facts of 1 of his MANY critics, but joining MANY other lefties, who all criticize the fact-checking of Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism (Ephraim is also cited in this WP article & to be fair, I'll point out that BOTH sides, even 'our' side such as Ephraim, can be attacked on WP:RS grounds if JewishVirtualLibrary can be, but that we have "character assassins" on BOTH sides, and then more rarely we have SOLID/legit issues of poor fact-checking i.e. poor scholarliness even from some of the PhD's--but I've seen most mainstream sources praise JewishVirtualLibrary & only partisan "assassins" attack JVL based on Logical Fallacies rather than rational arguments), israel-wat.com cablegate.wikileaks.org sourced from a soldier who violated his oath of loyalty, a crime that goes to his credibility ...Edward_Said#Intellectual_criticism wow 'nuff said about that guy in his well-cited WP 'criticisms' section, and for the following, I've found more RE: objectivity than solid critiques of fact-checking...but what I'm writing isn't even a complete list: Jrnl of Palestine Studies (editor was even cited by some as a PLO official, also he won an award in the name of Edward Said whose own veracity is crippled in the last link), jcpa.org (run by former Israeli ambassador). My position is that MOST of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT just not as strongly as JVL meets WP:RS, despite Nableezy's baseless/unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't...but you might want to hang onto this list & challenge some of the more extreme sources in this list (in bold text) even if JVL is accepted as a source. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of information removed without any justification based on Wikipedia's rules

Greetings. You are the only one who can save this huge sourced content. You have reason and Wikipedia's policy on your side. The fight is not over. But you can finish it with a little more of perseverance. Or you can report this nonsense to an administrator. Besides, even helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor.--201.235.55.19 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I have the time or patience to deal with these people right now, but even if I did, after you posted here if I touch that material I'll be rightly accused of meatpuppeting for a banned user. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

There's a new New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem#Requested_move_2. I'm telling you about this because you were involved in the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello stalkers

Could someone please email me if/when the Jerusalem RfC goes live? I don't have the time or patience to deal with this place and its unusually high percentage of assholes right now or in the foreseeable future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll let you know when it starts, and remove you from the list of participants. Feel free to put yourself back on the list if you do feel like getting involved again. Also, I strongly recommend that you stop referring to other editors in the Israel/Palestine topic area as "stalkers" or "assholes", etc. I won't do anything about this now, but other editors could very easily report you to WP:AE for making comments like that, and you would probably be topic-banned or blocked. If you have a complaint about one of the other participants in the moderated discussion, please send me an email about it and I'll try and help you out. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see that you never put your name down as a participant. I got confused because you've been active on the Jerusalem talk page, and because of the post you made on the mediation page. Sorry about that. The rest of my post should still apply, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant stalkers in the WP:TPS sense. I doubt saying that this place has an unusually high percentage of assholes is an offense worthy of a topic ban (from what topic?), but if there's a chance it is I'm sure someone will report me and we'll find out if I'm right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, that was another misunderstanding on my part. You meant "this place" as in Wikipedia, I take it. I thought you were talking about the Jerusalem RfC discussion, given your previous sentence. My mistake, sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, I'm not sure that even if I was referring to the participants of the Jerusalem RfC it would be a topic ban worthy offense, since I wasn't saying anything about anyone in particular.

Anyway, looks like you're on top of things there and hopefully you'll see through the attempts to form the RfC in such a way that a certain very dedicated group will have a higher chance of getting the result they want. I hope the regular wikipedia norms will be kept and the community will have its say without being herded towards a particular result. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. As an outside observer, there is no need for all this anger. I don't know what you are angry about, but just stop. Wikipedia is about making articles, and indexing human knowledge. It is not about getting into fights. Thanks. — Rosscoolguy 02:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of positive buzz words. RfA on the horizon? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering I don't recall ever interacting with this gentleman, I wonder what he's doing here. Oh well. Good luck with the RfA. I read there aren't enough admins. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem comments

Hello NMMNG. I'm writing this from my mobile phone, so my apologies if this seems rather brief. I just wanted to say, though, that I've noticed your recent comments in the Jerusalem discussion, and I have two points that I want to make. The first is, if you want to get more closely involved with the discussion there, could you list yourself as a participant at the top of the page? The second is that I'm worried that your comments are taking on an accusatory tone, for example this one where you say "Keep up the clever posts, you're this >< close to winning wikipedia!" I can appreciate that you might be frustrated by the discussion, but this sort of comment isn't going to help resolve things - on the contrary, it is very likely to escalate the dispute, and that's really something we want to avoid. To prevent further escalation it is important that everyone keeps their comments about the content and not about the other participants - would you be willing to keep your comments only about the content? If you have any concerns about users' conduct you're welcome to let me know about them by email, but I would rather that you keep them off the discussion page. Let me know if this sounds reasonable, and if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, when someone accuses you of something silly, and you tell them they're wrong, and they come back twice more to accuse you of the same thing (in posts focusing on me rather than the content, as you put it), it becomes quite obvious they're not interested in improving the encyclopedia but are rather engaged in some sort of personal game. So I told him he's nearly winning. Hopefully that'll satisfy him and he'll quit badgering me with nonsense. I'll try not to take the bait in the future, but I'd appreciate it if you told him to cut out the nonsense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been dealt with as badly as I expected, unfortunately. Oh well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Tariqabjotu's talk page

Hi NMMNG. I'm not quite sure what prompted this. Perhaps there are some aspects of my recent closing comments at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion that you think I should have handled differently? If so, I would appreciate it if you could let me know what they were, as I'm having a tough time trying to work it out by myself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What difference would that make? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there's a fact that I've missed, or an opinion that I have misinterpreted, then I can change my close to take that into account or ask the other participants for clarification. I've already done this for my question nine, which was based on my misreading of the question one discussion. There's not much I can do if I don't know what parts of the process you aren't happy with, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, our first ever interaction was you showing up on this page and threatening me with a topic ban because of a comment I made to my talk page stalkers about nobody and no topic in particular. Considering I am an editor in good standing with thousands of edits in a contentious topic without even a single block or ban, that was a bit of a, shall we say "strange", first contact.

Our second interaction was you deleting one of my comments on the RfC page, telling me you were "worried" that my "comments are taking on an accusatory tone". On the other hand, to an editor who called another editor a "pissy loser" [30] you just wanted to remind them not to get worked up, told them you understand why they said what they said and invited them to make any further such comments privately in your email. You did not delete their post or get too worried about anything.

To the editor that my comment which you deleted was directed at, you said that it's "hard to tell" whether his comments are "about the content or about user conduct". [31]. Is it really "hard to tell" what a comment like this is about? (Please note that this is what he said about the subject in another part of the RfC. Quite obvious his accusatory "question" to me is not exactly honest or made in good faith). This editor and I have a bit of a history. I caught him being intellectually dishonest several times, and since then he keeps trying to prove I'm as bad as he is. You will notice that my original edit (second part), does not say what he accuses me of saying, apropos dishonesty. Anyway, I tried to disengage, but he continued to make more comments about me, which you apparently found "hard to tell" if they were about me or the content. In summary, my post telling him to stop playing games gets deleted and is worrying, his posts misrepresenting what I said, accusing me of stuff and harassing me after I try to disengage are "hard to tell".

I think at this point you already understand that I don't have high hopes for that RfC. There is currently a group of activist editors that are freely allowed to harass and bully editors who don't agree with them (I only gave a couple of examples above, there are many more), and they are being allowed to so tightly control the RfC that the whole thing has become an exercise in futility. Let them just write the text for the article and be done with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What he said.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it didn't make a difference after all. Who'd a thunk it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. The reason I didn't reply yesterday is that I was tired and grumpy, and if I respond to user-conduct-related posts when I'm feeling like that, things usually don't go too well. I wanted to type a longer reply to you today, but I'm afraid real life is getting in the way. For now, I'll just say that I agree that I could have handled this better, but that incivility on the discussion page isn't going to help fix anything. Also, I noticed that you didn't include any content-related issues above, only conduct-related ones. Are there any specific content issues that you would also like me to address? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are, but I don't see any point in discussing them here. The content issues are a result of the conduct issues. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes things difficult. If content issues stem from conduct issues and not the other way round, then the Jerusalem RfC discussion isn't the best place to deal with them. The RfC discussion is focused on content (or at least that is my intent), and I want to avoid extensive discussion about user conduct. My idea is to keep everything focused on the RfC as much as possible, so that we can get the content question answered once and for all. If you would like to deal with the user conduct issues, may I suggest starting an RfC/U? That's probably the best venue to deal with protracted user conduct issues. I think it would be a good idea to wait until the RfC discussion is over before starting an RfC/U though, as it could very easily sour the atmosphere and make it more difficult for participants to collaborate. Does that sound like a reasonable course of action to you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would I bother with an RfC/U? I'm used to Nableezy et al's behavior. You're the one who dealt with it badly. If you want to do something, go ahead. If not, don't. I really don't care. But please stop trying to feed me the "I could have done better but let's talk about something else" or "we'll talk about it when we're done" lines.

By the way, I noticed you were wondering why there was low participation in the draft discussion section. It's pretty obvious - other than Tariq, the other participants don't care how the article is changed as long as it doesn't remain like it is now. So they don't really have much to discuss. I hope that helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hi NMMNG. You asked me a while ago to notify you when the Jerusalem RfC starts. Well, it has just started today, so here is your notification. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

purim

"Says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide" link is wrong. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: AE restriction

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are indefinitely prohibited from contributing to arbitration enforcement requests or appeals thereof that concern the case WP:ARBPIA, except to defend yourself where any enforcement actions against you are discussed.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I see you're reading the thread on Sandstein at ANI. I joked with someone last night about how I should email both you and Nableezy in order to get the dirt on him from both sides on when he has gone Terminator.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering you were agitating for me to be blocked, you really must have some kind of defect in your understanding of social situations to come here and ask me for anything.

I have infinitely more respect for Sandstein than I have for some politically motivated "me too"er like you. He acts in good faith. You don't.

Now go away and don't come back. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bravo!94.76.244.157 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy in support of the Arabs

Will it be possible for you to contact pluto2012 and try to resolve the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs". He deleted this section although Wikipedia rule is: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

In order to resolve the problem, I consider applying for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As a prerequisite, there is a demand for "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem". That is the reason for asking you. thanks.

Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.

NPOV Noticeboard

Dispute resolution noticeboard

help desk

help desk Ykantor (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm so thoroughly disgusted with this place right now that I have no interest in wasting time trying to improve the unimprovable. I know that for people like you that means encountering an automatic majority that won't let you put anything that doesn't fit their political agenda in articles, but think about it this way - the more they slant the articles, the more obvious it is to a layman that there's something wrong, that in turn strengthens wikipedia's much deserved reputation as being unreliable which makes the whole thing matter less and less. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I can understand your feeling. Ykantor (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification

You're a respected editor, and, mostly, a usefully close reader of the edits that interest you. But I think you are way too suspicious or inflexible whenever we cross paths. I brought the issue up here, not of course for sanctions, but to request some advice. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear NMMMNG, please refrain from attacking editors. First you attacked Nishidani by labeling him as an antisemite. Now you are adding insult to injury by calling him a 'childless old man.' I kindly advise you to remove anything from the sub-page off of your user page that can be seen as labeling Nishidani as an antisemite, and to stop posting on Nishidani's talk page. Your allegations against Nishidani and your posts on his user talk page are not in the spirit of the communitarian culture of Wikipedia, are counter-productive and do not help improve the encyclopedia. Thank you. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear person I've never seen before, I'm fairly certain that both the information that he's an old man, and that he has no children came from him, so how is that a personal attack?

I kindly advise you to not edit my talk page comments and to perhaps consider not jumping into stuff that has nothing to do with you. Thank you. Best wishes, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One Million Plan

Thank you for already making major progress in addressing the longstanding issues with this article. I spent a lot of time on it when it was at DYK, and was not happy with what went through at that time. Alas, these things can be very time-consuming, and I'm far from being an expert on Israel-Palestine. Edwardx (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? It went to DYK like that? Whoever wrote it completely misunderstood the history, despite putting in relevant quotes. I suspect they have only read Shenhav and not the actual sources they were quoting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it was even more problematic before I became involved. Please read Template:Did you know nominations/One Million Plan. Early on in the DYK review, the article creator stated, "I don't understand what gives you the right to question such well respected scholarly sources" and later, "It seems you have a hard time assuming good faith". I went on to suggest, "you ought to be able to direct me to the relevant primary source, and the rest of the scholarly literature". It looks like what your suspicion is reasonable. Eventually, I just lost interest in the One Million Plan. I'm far from an expert in this area, but I'm more neutral than most (for example, pro-Israel friends think I'm too pro-Palestine and vice-versa). Edwardx (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That hook was completely incorrect as well. Like I said, he completely misunderstood the sources and the history, probably because he got everything from one (activist) source. Nothing we can do now though, I guess. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:One Million Plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism and Wikipedia

• User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above page was created on 17 May 2015 with edit summary "copy this here". There have been no edits since. Do you have any plans for the page? If it was copied from another page on Wikipedia where other editors had contributed, WP:CWW should be observed. However, it appears there might be a problem with respect to WP:POLEMIC because the page is essentially a claim that a certain editor is anti-Semitic—disguising it by not naming the editor is not sufficient. Please consider replacing the contents with {{db-userreq}} to request its deletion. An alternative would be to follow the advice at WP:POLEMIC and immediately use the page for evidence presented at a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The page was copied from my user page, not a Wikipedia article. My plan is to continue adding stuff from Wikipedia, newspapers and other sources if i see anything I feel is relevant and interesting. The page has already been presented at a noticeboard as I suspect you're aware, and discussion is ongoing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is still a problem. First, it is not acceptable to use any page to assert that an editor has significant faults, unless at a noticeboard where the alleged faults are discussed, or as preparation for such discussion. Second, Wikipedia works on principles, not rules, so a disguised attack is recognized as an attack, regardless of the subtlety employed. Third, whatever its content, the history of the page (Antisemitism and Wikipedia) shows that it is intended to document that an editor at Wikipedia is anti-Semitic. Finally, reading the content shows that it attempts to portray an editor as anti-Semitic with terms like "maliciously" being linked to a diff of an editor adding a comment—that is a claim that the editor maliciously made a statement that is anti-Semitic. Such pages are routinely removed from Wikipedia because either there is a problem (which should be dealt with at a suitable noticeboard), or the community believes no such problem exists. In both cases, a user-space page with such claims must be removed, if necessary at WP:MFD. You referred to the ANI discussion above, and may be wondering why I am bothering to post this given that no one has supported the request at ANI (permalink). A lack of support is common at ANI for complex cases, and everyone knows that something in the WP:ARBPIA area is a quagmire, so it is unlikely that people will spend time investigating the issue. However, such disinterest is not an indicator of the community norms outlined at WP:POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What ethnicity do you think he was talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[stuff not relevant to this page removed by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)]

Re NMMNG's most recent comment above, I fear that the question may indicate a lack of engagement with what I have been trying to say. I have avoided offering an opinion on the page content because whether or not someone is anti-Semitic is totally irrelevant since user pages are not available for accusing anyone of anything—use a noticeboard for that. Also, the recent edit to change "maliciously" to "mockingly" has no bearing on the issue—the word could be omitted without changing the underlying assertion that an editor is anti-Semitic. However, there is one thing about the page content I would like to comment on because I do not understand the point being made in:

"try to guess who the victim here really is"

In the diff, Nishidani refers to attacks by a banned user. May I ask what that text is intended to show? Is it suggesting that the banned user might have a point and could in fact be the victim? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Nishidani doesn't allow me to post on his page, I don't allow him to post here. If you want to have a discussion with him you'll have to do that elsewhere. You can also record your response to him somewhere else. Kindly revise your comment, or I will do it for you. Also, if you're not going to answer my questions I don't see how you can expect me to answer yours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss anything with a third party—my aim was to say to you (not anyone else) that concern that people may perceive removal as censorship of criticism is not a reason to maintain a page of this nature. It's reasonable to want an answer to your question, but apart from my reluctance to discuss whether an editor is bad except at a noticeboard, I get a bit queasy when addressing issues such as ethnicity—culture has imposed many layers of history and interpretation on that term and it is hard to assign an objective or value-free meaning to it. I think the essence of your question is to ask what group was referred to by "Chosen People". The sentence with that term is talking about the two peoples (Palestinians and Israelis) who live in a certain region, and appears to start a not-quite finished thought to the effect that it would be very hard to have your land expropriated because you were a member of the wrong group. I interpret "Chosen People" (Israelis) as a way of identifying the arbitrariness of the situation, rather than identifying an ethnicity. I gather the term is regarded with a lot of sensitivity in some areas, but I don't see any reason to imagine it was intended as a slur—it was just a quick talk-page comment about discord that would have influenced attitudes leading to a war. The section with the comment concerned whether an edit was confused regarding the period mentioned in the text—it's hard for someone like me to see anything offensive in the June 2013 discussion. Re my question, I was concerned that the banned user is one the most disturbed of the many malcontents who abuse Wikipedia. In case you are not aware, please have a quick look here (it's quite a sad case). Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask you about the Chosen People comment (although your interpretation of a sentence that refers to DNA and converting to Judaism and who is or isn't a Jew is quite interesting. It's a novel interpretation for an age old term, often used as a slur. I'm sure it was not at all influenced by your trying to help your friend). I asked you specifically about a comment made a few days ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I have a better question. I'll ignore the fact your interpretation of this usage of "Chosen People" is nothing like what he said (he claimed he didn't know it could even be used as a slur, if you can believe that). You note above that you know the term is "regarded with a lot of sensitivity in some areas". Please answer me this - is there another minority group for which you condone the usage of terms that are "regarded with a lot of sensitivity" on Wikipedia talk pages? Please give an example or two. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not been successful in presenting my view that the page fails WP:POLEMIC, so I have nominated it for deletion, as seen in the formal notification below. I wanted to discuss the page so when you asked me about "ethnicity" I assumed you were referring to the evidence on the page in question. Regarding "chosen people": I accept that you are sensitive about the phrase, but as that link shows the wider community within and outside Wikipedia does not share that view. Similarly, I see no hint at Jews as the chosen people that the term is used as a slur. Given your views, I gather that some usages are slurs, but the two linked articles show that the term is widely used with no ill intent. Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. So when you said it's "regarded with a lot of sensitivity in some areas" you meant me personally, and not for example, the editor of the Guardian who apologized for his newspaper using it. I'm sure you've seen that on the page you just nominated for deletion. And are you seriously trying to use wikipedia as a source here? A little intellectual honesty would have been nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Gone. Quelle surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff

User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

1950–51 Baghdad bombings - AE

Please note that I will be filing an AE regarding your edits at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. When? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Monochrome Monitor

Hi. Monochrome Monitor is expanding his edit-war to History of Esperanto, where he blanked Wexler's idea of Esperanto being relexified Yiddish with the edit summaries rm very fringe, the vast majority of scholars reject this and its stated as true, and Hebrew is nothing like esperanto (it is not stated as true, it is introduced with "it has been suggested that") and Suggested is not adequate—by making this entire section about Yiddish you give the concept undue weight as if it were true. It's about the history of Esperanto, which has nothing to do with Yiddish except in Wexler's theory (off course the entire section is about Yiddish -- the section title is "Standardized Yiddish and relexified Esperanto", and standardizing Yiddish was another of Zamenhof's projects). — kwami (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm starting to suspect MM is going to have quite a short editing career. It's a shame, but what can you do. I wouldn't fault you for reporting her (I believe she said she's female) at this stage, but I can stop by Esperanto and try to help if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

She apologized on my talk page (I should've apologized back - oh well), and more recent edits seem reasonable (don't agree 100%, but then when do we ever), so hopefully things will work out. She could make some good contributions.

Weird how I sometimes assign gender without thinking about it, and sometimes don't. Maybe it's how combative s.o. is. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope it works out. I think she could be a good editor if she slows down a bit and uses the talk page a little more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You owe me the 10 minutes I just spent reading a bunch ridiculous bureaucratic nonsense. Although to be fair, watching those anti-Israel guys (and really, other than maybe Huldra none of them can be reasonably suspected of caring for the Palestinians more than they hate Israel, or in some cases Jews) obsess over socks was somewhat amusing. Amazing how they never find socks with whom they agree politically. What are the odds? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Source

I pressed the link you provided, but it didn't open for me. Thanks for your edit. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't the one who put the source there, but it does open for me when I click it. Anyway, no worries. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Misreading again.

At Lions' Gate stabbings you again turn up to revert me. Your edit summary shows you did not read what I wrote in my edit summary. I wrote:’ stub is just that. The main article is this

Stub here, had you checked, referred to the infobox having a link to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015), which is, precisely a pathetic stub. I replaced it with =List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, which happens to be the main article. You misread that, I am getting tired of these misreadings, as a reference to the article Lions’ Gate stabbings. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that your little list project is the main article of anything. In the future kindly post your concerns about my edits on the relevant article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do admire the aplomb with which you deal with User:Nishdani's incessant WIKIHOUNDING and his bad, POV editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  I can only do it in short bouts, though. In a couple of weeks I will be so thoroughly disgusted that they let the kind of behavior he displays freely go on here, that I'll leave. It's just not worth it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: I edited that article before Nisidani so his claim that I showed up to revert him is bullshit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed, a great deal of the problem with ARPIA and a number of the other topics on WP is that decent people are driven away by intense ideologues pushing their monomaniacal POV by fair means and foul.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_tag_teaming. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Be nice

I saw on Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Edits_to_the_FAQ that you have been calling User:Oncenawhile all kinds of names. Please be civil and correct at all times. Just stick to the issue at hand and don't play on the person. You can read up about this at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean when he persistently wouldn't accept answers to a question he asked which eventually turned out to be easily and directly answered with something he himself added to the article? And then he practically admitted he was wasting my time on purpose? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely what I mean. Always assume good faith. For that, please see WP:AGF. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I don't need to assume good faith when he admits he wasn't acting in good faith. Thanks for your input, though. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bless you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For standing up against incessant efforts to make Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish they cared about accuracy. Objectivity is subjective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright and translations

Translations are considered derivative works of the original. That means that if the original work is copyrighted then any translation is subject to the same copyright. If you're using material from a foreign language source which you've translated into English than you need to make sure you rephrase it in your own words exactly as you would with an English source. Hut 8.5 23:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper

I think you mentioned once before that you were a big fan of his. I am sorry for your loss. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This childish attempt at harassment is exactly what I'd expect from someone of your stature. I think you may have lost the ability to discern what is true and what is your fantasy, since I've never said anything about Harper. You should really seek some professional help and perhaps stop editing for a while, it seems the pressure is getting to you. I hope you get better soon, buddy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you continue to turn everything into the negative. It doesn't matter how hard I try to reach out the hand of friendship.

Is there any chance of reconciling your outlook to be more positive? If there is anything I can do to help you, you know how to find me.

Be strong.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: The above two posts are the only edits Oncenawhile made to Wikipedia in the past 3 5 days. Apparently he can't keep away from his unrequited love. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification

Nishidani has continued the debate at Talk:Jews#Cite_grouping at another forum, namely Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation, the WP:NOR noticeboard. Since you have commented at the first discussion, but not (yet) at the second, I thought I'd bring this to your attention, in case you would like to comment there as well. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how all the "anti-Zionists" are showing up there, eh? They've got the numbers, there's nothing you or I can do. Be prepared for the definition to be changed to whatever the current PR memes are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning for violating WP:SOAP and WP:AGF

If you want to discuss other users, the best idea is: don't. If you still want to do it, use their talk pages. Abusing article talk pages only to take shots at other users like you did here [32] and here [33] violates both WP:SOAP and WP:AGF. Article talk pages are only for discussing how to improve articles. Further violations could result in you being blocked. Jeppiz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to restore my edits and you can go ahead and report me. I notice I'm the only editor whose SOAP and AGF seem to concern you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary

[34] Got a diff where they say this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: There's this pretty straightforward admission, and also some other stuff at SPI [35]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

About that sock

• The IP who just posted, and was deleted, is disruptive and calls other editors "fucking moron", as you can see by looking at the material he deletes from his talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty obvious sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

and it is pretty obvious who it is, too. E-mail me for details. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Coastal Road Massacre

Ref your decision to revert to the word terrorists in this article. WP:TERRORIST states that you must use have a reliable sources to describe the subject, and you must use in-text attribution. Therefore I will revert to add in line citation, i.e. source x says that this was a terrorist incident. You revert is not in accordance with wikipedia policy.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

New proposal for Bat Ye'or

We've occasioned a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion the upshot of which was that 3O contributors aren't supposed to get involved in debates. I'd like to make another attempt to reach a consensus between us before trying other DR methods. Please see my proposal at Talk:Bat Ye'or. Eperoton (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Makeandtoss (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Constant abuse of talk pages for personal comments

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:TPO and stop editing my talk page comments. You tried this shtick before, remember? Didn't gain much traction at ANI, if I recall. Now cut it out. You're harassing me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For your comments at Anti-semitic anti-Zionism. Turns out Werner Bergmann defined the term several years ago, in highly similar terms to those used by Johnson. This clears up all significant issues of notability, although the drive-by merge proposal remains on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the merge discussion? Would it be better to simply move this discussion to AFD, where more editors could see it and weigh in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine starting an AfD for an article you don't really want deleted is the right way to go, but I guess it's too late now. Next time I think you should try an RfC. That will bring in uninvolved editors (hopefully) while keeping focus on the merge proposal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

White Knight

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your vigilant efforts to stop drive-by tagging, and POV editing that makes Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If the source is not good...

If the source is not good... why did you not undo this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I added notes from that source which was added in the link I gave above. If you think the source is not good, remove everything related to that source. Yes? Omysfysfybmm (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you are not allowed to edit articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you have 500 edits. See WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Second, the way you worded the information was in violation of WP:EDITORIAL, so I would have removed it even if you were allowed to edit. As for the source, it is reliable for the author's own opinions which is why I attributed it rather than removed the whole thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following. You did not attribute anything. You removed a clear point my brothers and sisters like to make while alleging the source was shit. Now, either it is shit, or it isn't. Make up your mind and let me know.

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitatis (talk • contribs)
Note to self: Closed immediately as obvious BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#No More Mr Nice Guy nableezy - 20:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page/Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Does the 500/30 rule apply to engaging on talk pages? I want to weigh into the discussion but I also don't want to be sanctioned. Please advise. Turkeyturkeypieyum (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy/The New York Times and the Holocaust

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The New York Times and the Holocaust".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.

My apologies for using a standardized template. User:No More Mr Nice Guy/The New York Times and the Holocaust, which I created as a userspace draft for you from a deleted article more than four years ago, has not been edited in that time. It's time for it to be put to rest. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you're taking an interest in my sub pages despite me not actually editing in months. I assume you're doing some groundwork to get your bit back? I would not at all be surprised if someone who used an antisemitic slur would be reinstated, so good luck to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You and AE

I see here that you are banned from AE. I don't know whether you are banned from opening requests against Nishidani as well, but please stop making personal attacks against Nishidani in edit summaries. This is simply a low workaround against this restriction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I see the connection between any of your three sentences. I do suspect you've been following my contribs. Have you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See this, this. No, I have not been following your contributions. You simply popped up on a couple of my watchlisted pages (Arab revolt in Palestine and the newly created Black Sunday page). Now that I have checked your contributions, I see that you have made an appeal on Sandstein's page. Believe it or not, it is a complete coincidence. In any case my point remains the same. Stop making personal attacks in edit summaries. If you feel the language is not to your liking, fix it. Any problems with the editor, you go to the drama board, not engage in low-level sniping. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So basically you're asking that I stop calling source falsification "source falsification" and POV pushes "POV pushes". I'm going to have to respectfully decline. a. because my summaries are accurate. and b. because they indicate clearly why I made the change I did. This is what good wikipedians do.

I'd be happy to hear your opinion on what I termed "source falsification". When a source says something was adopted "soon" and carried out in the "continuing decades", would it be correct to say it was adopted "eventually" in "future decades"? "They immediately did the same thing" vs "they eventually, decades later, did the same thing". This is the point where you usually withdraw rather than admit your buddy did something wrong. Surprise me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that Nishidani is engaging in source falsification, you go to AE. It is a serious charge; by the same token, a serious charges shouldn't be flung about willy-nilly. See WP:ASPERSIONS. I have no interest in debating the rendering of the source in this venue. File a report at AE and I'll gladly do it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No surprise, then. How unsurprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You know policy as well as I do. Here are a few more: WP:FOC, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. If you, for your past sins, aren't allowed to file AE requests, that's too bad: but I didn't create the silly policies of Wikipedia. In lieu of doing that, virtually every comment of yours to or on Nishidani is dripping with contempt and snide remarks. I don't like plenty of people myself and I sometimes do snipe at them. But I try to keep it under control: you can too. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If I wanted to report someone, AE is not the only venue, so your harping on that makes little sense. Considering you refused to give me the courtesy of answering a simple question directly related to an accusation you made against me, I really see no purpose in continuing this. If you think what I did violates so many wikipedia policies, I strongly encourage you to report me at the appropriate board. You won't of course, and we both know why. It's the same reason you won't answer my question. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I rarely report people to AE and counsel leniency in cases which do go there. This was simply a courtesy. However, if you continue to do this, rest assured, I will report it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you will. You would never put your ally at such risk. Rest assured I will continue to note in my edit summaries when I correct source falsification and POV pushes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal

I have closed the appeal you filed at arbitration enforcement. The result is that the appeal is granted, and the corresponding restriction on AE requests is lifted immediately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinians

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Palestinians. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing an attack he made on other users. I assume you warned him too? (just kidding. Of course you didn't). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken. There was no personal attack until you made one yesterday, two and a half months after Nishidani's last comment. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I inadvertently mislead you to believe I want to have a discussion with you on my talk page. My question was rhetorical. An editor who called a Jewish editor "jewboy" and hasn't even bothered to strike it out is not welcome here. Get lost. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani's comment was an attack against multiple other editors, placing them in a group and commenting on people, not content. Ie, "I have frequently noted on the Jews article's talk page, that the standards Zionist editors demand here are violated there, in a WP:SYNTH definition." "the editors who keep trying to hack at Palestinian identity know that, but just concentrate their efforts here" "Totally slack or ideologically committed to their own oneiric myths of self-definition" Then proceeding with a list of fake quotes pulled from hate sites. Drsmoo (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

He was addressing "The 3 editors who negate this usage", personalizing from the get-go. He said their editing the article is "like having a Turkish majority on a page on the Armenians" (ie, the committers of genocide and their victims. We should be glad he learned not to use the Nazi analogy, I guess). He said they should be "embarrassed" for editing the article and are "crass". That's just the first comment. Then he went on to say the stuff Drsmoo notes. That's just for the record, not an invitation for certain editors to comment here, if that wasn't clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Since you were involved in the discussion, I'm alerting you to the conversation on the noticeboard regarding Hamas/Likud. Drsmoo (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request closed

An Arbitration Enforcement case[36] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yinon Plan

Do you have access to pages 76-77 of Sleimen's "Conspiracy Theories in the United States and the Middle East: A Comparative Approach" article? I suspect the material in the article tying Yinon's article to Lebanese conspiracy theories is not supported by that source, but can't verify it. Epson Salts (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see a preview on google books. The text in the article is reasonable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DRN

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources Drsmoo (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

M Sh(yamalan)abazz

Did you happen to catch Malik Shabazz's screed on his userpage??? A friend alerted me about it, and it was so engrossing, it pulled KT out of retirement just to write you.

What am I missing? Is this the same Shabazz who, as an admin, called another editor "Jewboy" while referring to himself as a "nigger"? He's a Jew?! I heard those rumors floating, but never believe it... but it all makes sense now. Who else could be one of the most rabid anti-Israel editors than a Jew???

It is pretty funny... for the longest time, his userpage had a photo of the back of a big, bad, black dude, but I always envisioned him sitting in his parents Beverly Hills mansion, a little "Jewfro" with a pick in it, going after anyone who wrote anything positive about Israel. What a blowhard! I'd like to see that whitie wear a suit and bowtie to a Nation of Islam event... see what they do to him. Just another layer added to the third biggest a-hole in the Arab-Israeli area.

Cheers! KamelTebaast 02:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a very interesting post. Putting aside the easily disproved claims that "Democracies don't bar visitors because of their opinions" (see List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom or List of people barred or excluded from the United States for some very straightforward examples of how common this is), or that Israel barred "people ... who support Israel but not its illegal colonies and human rights abuses in the West Bank and the Golan Heights" when it said it bars BDS activists (the vast majority of which are one-staters), or the implication that BDS is an opinion rather than an action. All that is kinda expected from an anti-Israel activist like MS. What I find interesting here is that he seems to be wanting to justify his anti-Israel editing retroactively? I recently read this book, which explains how the brain builds stories to retroactively explain past actions in seemingly logical ways, often in ways the individual can't see the illogic, but this is ridiculous.

I also always like these little "here is my history full of credentials that make my words carry more weight than you might expect!" both for what they say and for what they omit. By the way, did you happen to catch his "political compass" userbox? Imagine the ideological purity a person must have to get that kind of score. Not much room for Israel support that far into the extreme of either the left or the right, but hey, he "grew up in Habonim"!

But the most interesting question here who did he post that for? I can't imagine anyone here thought of him as pro-Israel. Who's the intended audience? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Balfour lede

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. You have new messages at Talk:Balfour Declaration.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

note to self: Oncenawhile explicitly pinged me on that page [37], this is probably one of his little harassment attempts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You were mentioned

[38]--Shrike (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ARCA

Threaded discussion is explicitly not allowed at the ARCA page. Please remove your comment from underneath mine. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

Hi. Look at these nonsense tags? (without consensus, as usual) Russell Tribunal??? Is it a joke? Could you remove it, please? Thanks--186.137.109.226 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Those tags are nothing compared to his Hitler quotes in the Zionism article, trying to improve the image of senior Nazis and trying to make Jews the principal suppliers of women in the Harem article. The fact that guy is even editing is a disgrace, but I learned the hard way that Wikipedia is not interested in dealing with people like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Or what he's doing to Harem or Human rights in Israel, it's a shame that nothing can be done. I am also not dealing with this, no matter how much my radar is going off. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the reason you punish people for complaining about harassment. They stop complaining and you can pretend there's no harassment. This kind of stuff will only be solved if some outside media attention somehow starts happening. Then the Wikimedia foundation will scramble doing damage control. It's all too reminiscent of, say, this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, 100%, I had something similar happen to me half a year ago during Bernie Sanders is a Jew episode. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I got banned from AE for complaining about someone who said, among other things, that Purim is a celebration of genocide. But hey, in Germany firebombing synagogues is a form of legitimate political discourse [39]. At least we're not burning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why nobody really ends up taking Wikipedia seriously, which is a shame because it has great potential. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen this? From the Guardian no less. It could have been written about several Wikipedia editors, and how the administration deals with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, kudos for the Guardian for that, surprising indeed. There was another row about the Labor college club in Oxford I think and they had a report on antisemitism and they basically did what the Guardian wrote Labor does, they hushed up all incidents of antisemitism on college campuses and within the Labor club. But as to how it is on Wikipedia, it's worse than that because here there is no mechanism in place. If I suspect someone, I will be blocked for a personal attack, and I was threatened with one ages ago during the whole Bernie Sanders is a Jew issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a mechanism in place. There are several. The problem is that not only do the admins let blatant antisemitism slide, they punish people for complaining. Like I said above, the only chance of this changing is if someone shines a spotlight on it. Hopefully that will happen one day soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There is actually a discussion on the Harem talk page in which every other editor agreed that the edits were undue. Seraphim System simply ignored everyone. I've now reverted him twice, and he's reverted me back twice. It's clear that he's not interested in consensus and has "Jews on the brain" as Malik Shabazz said. I don't agree with the apathy here either. When someone makes a bad edit you should revert it. Drsmoo (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the administrators here have made it abundantly clear that putting shit about Jews in articles is OK, talking shit about Jews on talk pages is OK, and even talking shit about Jews directly to Jews is OK. Particularly if you're a member of an extra privileged group, like this guy is (check out the usual suspects coming out to support him at AE [40], only poor WJBscribe hasn't got the memo yet (and this is the second time in a few weeks. He actually banned Huldra, thinking the rules apply to her like to everyone else, but that was quickly overturned). Compare and contrast with, say, this (an admin "got a bad vibe") or even this (tell me you don't constantly see worse about Jews).

When I first realized this I was shocked. But I understand it better now. This place consists mainly of White, Male, 20something westerners. These are the guys who think that when Jews complain they're "playing the antisemitism card" [41] and that Jews are anti-discrimination winners whose voice is constantly overheard [42]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Apropos: [43]. Surprisingly, Bouattia lost. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another interesting paper I was meaning to put here for future reference [44]. I'm sure someone will be around to goysplain [45] it in due course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So, are you going to remove these tags or not? Also the same POV warrior put this tag, although given source literally says: "The IDF, founded in 1948, ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars" Could you remove the misleading and false tag, please? Please do something. Thanks.--186.138.118.49 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. You're Andres. How many times do I have to tell you to get lost? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for WP:ARBPIA 1RR violation as set out at AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

No More Mr Nice Guy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I acknowledge there might be a technical violation here, I was under the impression from previous precedent here that if someone reverts asking for a source, restoring with the source requested is not considered a revert. I would have of course self-reverted immediately if someone would have told me this is not the case or even discussed the merits of the complaint at AE.

Accept reason:

Unblocked at WP:AE, see below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll copy paste from what I wrote on Sandstein's talkpage.

Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would decline the appeal. The argument that a revert is not a revert if it provides a requested source is mistaken, because no Wikipedia definition of "revert" exempts such reverts. Because Wikipedia does not have a "stare decisis" rule, any prior opinion by an admin to the contrary is not binding. Also, No More Mr Nice Guy could have made this argument in their defense at AE, but did not do so. The status of the consensus rule is not relevant here because 1RR was violated independently of it. If this appeal is to be considered further, it would need to be made at AE using the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template.  Sandstein  07:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein is correct that AE blocks are typically only appealed at AE. If NMMNG wants to appeal, I can make the argument there; no point in duplication. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I did not make the above argument at AE because that's not what Oncenawhile reported me for, as you can see in the original complaint I responded to here. He focused completely on the consensus rule. I now see he modified his complaint after I responded to the charge. Editors are usually given an opportunity to self-revert, which I would have done immediately, if I had realized 1RR was the issue. I'm an experienced editor with a clean record (or at least had one), and I feel I'm being treated harshly and punitively. I can't post at AE so can't appeal there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

At the time of your first statement, the complaint made it sufficiently clear that 1RR was the issue that you were able to make any self-reverts or arguments regarding it. The complaint was open for several days, enough time for you to make self-reverts or raise the arguments you do here.

You cannot edit AE while blocked, but an admin reviewing your unblock request can copy your appeal there if they think the appeal has merit. (But they are less likely to do so if the appeal is not in the format set out in {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} ).  Sandstein  15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not realize the issue was 1RR (for the reason mentioned in my unblock request) and therefore I didn't address it. I think that's fairly clear from my response to the complaint, if taking my word in good faith is not an option. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile mostly focused on the consensus clause, because that was the main issue. I am, in general, in favour of giving people a chance to self-revert before reporting them to AE. And NMMNG has earlier shown willingness to self-revert when asked. This is very common practice in ARBPIA because 1RR can be so easily broken, even by mistake (I have done it many times). While blocking for 1RR is within admin discretion, I think it's not necessary here to prevent disruption. If NMMNG wants, I can transfer their appeal to the AE page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

While I doubt it will be resolved in time, I would like the record to reflect my position on this, so if you could copy the following to AE, that would be appreciated: I did not realize 1RR was the issue, as the complaint focused on the consensus clause and I thought, based on previous precedent [46] (in another complaint Oncenawhile lodged against me, so he was aware of this) that providing a source as a response to a revert would not be frowned upon. Oncenawhile did not warn me, as is common practice, about the 1RR. Nobody participating in the discussion mentioned 1RR, everyone focused on the consensus clause. I would have self-reverted if I had realized there was an issue, like any experienced editor would have. There's no preventative purpose in blocking me and 72 hours for a first offence for an editor who's been around for years and has never been blocked seems unduly harsh. This sanction seems punitive and I would like my record clear, as I have been able to maintain it for years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have opened an appeal at WP:AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Could you please clarify at AE that because of the precedent (that the filer was aware of) and because the filer didn't note next to the diffs that they were a 1RR violation I didn't realize I was being reported for 1RR? Nobody in the ensuing discussion mentioned 1RR, either. I am not arguing that what I did was OK, I am arguing that I was not fully aware of the charges against me and would have corrected the violation had I known, as I have done in the past. I feel like they're missing the point here.

Please let me know if you don't want to continue this copying thing, I pinged you because you generously offered. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with copying text over, but I just saw this message. A couple of admins have already replied to the original request. So we would need to add the clarifying text as a separate message, and not a rewording of the original message. Let me know how you want to phrase it, if you want to add some more text to your request. I am watching this page, but ping me just in case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Since it has been a few hours, I have transferred the message as it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments

Here is a case where an editor with a prior topic ban for violating 1RR, knowingly violated 1RR again, refused to discuss his edit, was given a chance to self-revert, declined, was reported, showed up at AE to say his only purpose on wikipedia is to revert people he doesn't agree with on ARBPIA articles, was given a warning and case closed. Compare with my case just above. Clean record, would have self-reverted if I had realized I was being reported for 1RR. Got a 72 hour block. Opening the floor to guesses as to why the two cases are treated differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked you after the appeal at WP:AE. As I said there, the block was valid and the time given was well within admin discretion. The reason for lifting is probably more symbolic than anything, because many feel you get the point and keeping you blocked would serve no purpose. That said, tread carefully and ask if in doubt when editing 1RR articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. As I mentioned above, if I'd have had any doubt about the 1RR I would have immediately self-reverted. I just didn't notice that's what I was being reported for and did not receive the customary warning before being reported. Live and learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi. Could you take responsibility for this well-sourced edit? Thanks--190.31.180.46 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Andres. What did I tell you at least 100 times by now? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA noice

You left a message on my talk page titled as above along with a copy of the Palestine Israel enforcement template and a request that I should modify my behaviour. In my view, it is your behaviour that requires modification, not mine, although for the present I choose not to make an issue out of it beyond what I have stated publicly on the Balfour Declaration talk page. Since you appear unconvinced, I am content for you to initiate a request for administrative action and I will gladly accept the judgement of my peers in that regard.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I notified you of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions since I can't report someone who has not been notified.

I don't like reporting people who don't understand what they are doing, so again I suggest you consult an experienced editor whom you trust. If you don't substantiate or withdraw your personal attack shortly, I will report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note

See here. It's pretty simple. Just drop the habit of sneering, and this can be archived.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

being clear

"seems to have" is not an argument. How lousy this Wikipedia has become. - DePiep (talk)

It certainly has more support than the title you just invented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you not mention that, smartass No More Mr Nice Guy#top? -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

Could be time for you to step away for a bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Please see here. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice, all you need now is for Sandstein to show up and smack me with some disproportionate punishment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Surprise [47] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for edit-warring, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 18:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

....and once again Sandstein unilaterally closes in less than 24 hours with a disproportionate punishment. See above for my clairvoyant prediction this will happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear talk page stalkers, could one of you kindly copy the following into an AE appeal? Can't leave this crap unchallenged. Thanks

---

I was blocked for a week for edit warring on a talk page following this report. I made 5 edits over a 10 day period to a talk page. The first edit was not a revert. I self-reverted the last one as soon as I saw the report (no courtesy of a warning, as per the filer's usual MO with me). I couldn't have possibly been edit warring alone yet I am the only one whose behavior was scrutinized (including the filer of the report who edited against consensus). A week block for something like this is obviously punitive and not preventative. This is not the first time Sandstein closes an AE I'm involved in unilaterally and in less than 24 hours, with an unusually harsh punishment not supported by any other admins. Check out my talk page where I predicted something like this will probably happen before Sandstein posted on the request. I know AE admins have wide discretion but this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

---

@Icewhiz: if you could copy the following to my appeal as well, I would very much appreciate it. Also if you have any idea how to fix the formatting of this page please let me know.

---

I just went through the last 10 pages of archives, representing over 30 AE cases and appeals.

• Not a single case of an admin unilaterally closing a request (this is the 3rd time Sandstein has done this to me)
• One case was closed in less than 24 hours - an obvious topic ban violation closed after two admins discussed (this is the second time Sandstein has done this to me).
• In many cases the actions of the filer and other editors were taken into consideration, particularly when it was obvious the person reported was reacting to other editors. I did not get that privilege, but was told to file a report after being blocked (I can't, and by the time I could it will be stale).
• I'll go out on a limb and say that 4 reverts in a week+ to a talk page have probably never resulted in sanctions before. I'm willing to look at more archives to substantiate that, if necessary.

Could someone do me the courtesy and explain why I deserve this special and unusual treatment? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: sorry, I phrased that poorly. Should have included "to editors with more than 60 edits". Are you honestly saying these cases are comparable to mine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you want this copied over but here's my response: Edit count has little to do with it. Admins are free to act unilaterally and often do without a request being made. Have a look at WP:DSLOG and see how many editors have been sanctioned without a request being made at WP:AE. I know I've sanctioned editors with a couple thousand edits to tens of thousands of edits without seeking input from other admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: (should probably be copied otherwise someone might accuse me of doing something improper) I understand admins are free to act unilaterally. That is not the issue here. I'm going to again, go out on a limb here, and assume the times you were sanctioning editors unilaterally it was for a grave violation that required immediate action and not, say, 4 reverts on a talk page in over a week, one of which was immediately self-reverted when the AE was filed, signalling there will be no further disruption? Have you acted unilaterally against the same editor 3 separate times? Perhaps each of the things I listed happens every once in a while, but all of them together from the same admin? Come on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: one last thing. If this is such above the board normal behavior, how was I able to predict exactly that this will happen? [48] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: could you please do the same thing you do for other editors (eg [49]) and read the whole discussion before arriving at your conclusions? It's here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have just done so. It hasn't changed my mind. I realise this was quite a difficult discussion, and I don't know how to say this gently, but you don't come off very well in it. Not everyone was perfect, and I've certainly seen far worse behaviour in discussions that your in that one, but nonetheless I don't think that it shows quite what you want it to. At any rate, you were not sanctioned for this discussion but for related edit-warring. GoldenRing (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: ok, unrelated to AE, could you please explain what in my behavior you think "doesn't come off well"? I would like to learn and improve. As far as I see it, I removed some unsourced text, I provided 5 sources showing it was at best an NPOV violation, discussed those sources up to the point it seemed it was pointless to discuss further, and then repeatedly suggested the editor who didn't agree take them to RSN when he wouldn't let it go. What should I have done differently? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to give more detailed feedback but it won't be today, sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: no problem. Will you come back here or should I ping you on your talk page when my block is over? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Rachel's Tomb

Note to self: Onceinawhile has been trying to remove the 1996 thing from the lead for years. He has participated in discussion several times, including here. He removed material he knew has consensus. Again. I should start a list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Formatting and copy over

I copied over the text to AE - let me know if I did a mistake. Regarding formatting here - something broke - you might want to check on which revision if you really want to track it down - but what I suggest you do is archiving most of the talk page (or at least 97% of the 218 items here) - e.g. per the instructions [[Help:Archiving a talk page] instead of foguring out what open tag here is unmatched by a close.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

Because it was deleted while at MFD, I don't think I should undelete it. Instead, here's what it consisted of:

• Search in https://books.google.com/books?id=Lzs48d3tudsC for "thunderstorm"
• Search in https://forward.com/news/world/188764/german-hate-mail-comes-from-surprisingly-well-educ/?p=all&p=all for "semantics"
• https://forward.com/culture/books/185720/will-we-ever-be-forgiven-for-the-holocaust/ two final paragraphs
• Search http://fathomjournal.org/the-pleasures-of-antisemitism for "However, my concern"

You then provided links to [50], [51], and no-context links to three pages that don't exist anymore. Then, links to [52], [53], and [54] with this internal link. You quoted the second paragraph of [55] but didn't link it due to some blacklist issue. And finally, you provided links to [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62].

Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You put a db-u1 on it after it had been nominated for deletion. I've enabled you to get the text for yourself, and I will definitely not be restoring part or all of a page that was deleted under a cloud. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wishing you well

Noticed you haven't been around in a while. Hoping all is well and that you simply got tired of editing, or busy with life. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)